> he provides a useful factual context for the decision
Ugh, no he doesn't. The very first thing he states is wrong. A jury ruling does not establish case law.
He really is just a self-aggrandizing pundit, and even if he wasn't terrible, he'd still be a pundit. He's even gotten worse over time, as half of each of his articles now is just pointing out how the weasel words he used to describe upcoming cases in previous posts turned out to be totally true. Who on earth cares that the damages turned out to be relatively small, but hey, earlier he wrote that the monetary amount didn't matter?
Don't give him link juice. The OP Bloomberg article contains a large amount of context for the case.
> Who on earth cares that the damages turned out to be relatively small, but hey, earlier he wrote that the monetary amount didn't matter?
Well, actually he said the legal implications will matter more than the money, so that's something reasonably vague that he can point to later on if something fits that description and say, "see, I told you so."
Similarly he didn't say "this jury ruling will create case law". It's worded a lot more indirectly than that.
All his articles are like that, with lots of little predictions hedged by weasel words. As such, with all that hedging he ends up appearing to be right frequently, and he never misses a chance to link to any previous posts where "he had said so before".
But because he's careful to always hedge his bets, I find him to be more accurate than most pundits out there, who make bold claims and are either surprisingly correct or, more likely, end up eating claim chowder.
What annoys me more is the hard-on he has for Google -- the "Google micromanaged" Motorola Mobility division? Really?
Ugh, no he doesn't. The very first thing he states is wrong. A jury ruling does not establish case law.
He really is just a self-aggrandizing pundit, and even if he wasn't terrible, he'd still be a pundit. He's even gotten worse over time, as half of each of his articles now is just pointing out how the weasel words he used to describe upcoming cases in previous posts turned out to be totally true. Who on earth cares that the damages turned out to be relatively small, but hey, earlier he wrote that the monetary amount didn't matter?
Don't give him link juice. The OP Bloomberg article contains a large amount of context for the case.