[belgianguy]

It's for cases like these I miss Groklaw. The reporting that we get now usually is either shilling/biased or too low on details to get a clear picture of what went down, as patents and lawyerese usually result in a vague mess most of the time.

I hope Google knocks 'em out, but sadly the US legal system has 'surprised' me a bit too often to feel confident in the outcome.

[lcovington]

I have to disagree, I find Groklaw extremely biased as well. It just happens that the bias seems to fit with your personal biases as well, so it appears like good coverage. This was especially true during Samsung vs. Apple, or with anything to do with Microsoft, or with defending Motorola's abuse of FRAND patents.

[twinwing]

Groklaw had a clear bias and that could be corrected for. Their clear explanation of legal minutiae such that even a layman could understand it, and their attention to detail is why I follower their coverage.

I do not believe there is a completely unbiased source of news, No true Scotsman and all that...

[bertil]

I remember Groklaw actually sorting his technical understanding and personal bias.

[simonb]

s/his/her/g

[youngtaff]

Groklaw may have had a bias but you could always tell where Paula (?) was coming from and she doesn't appear to have taken money from anyone involved in the cases.

Other bloggers on the other hand seem very biased, are paid to consult on this stuff and don't disclose who's paying them for what.

[midas007]

I still don't understand the logic of how folding up shop was anything but signaling defeat.

[cromwellian]

Florian, is that you?

[zeruch]

I'm with you. Groklaw was such an elegant solution to a messy communication problem.

And yes, I want Google to completely clobber that firm (I'd love to see Myhrvhold and his ilk cowed brutally).

[throwawaykf03]

I'm not sure how accurate Groklaw was during the SCO case, but as someone who understands patents more than the average geek: Groklaw was horrible when it came to patent matters. Let alone the obvious bias and snark, PJ was frequently either deliberately misleading or, if you want to be generous, completely confused.

I personally would not be so generous because I saw her use underhanded methods too many times, like quoting things out of context or cherrypicking sentences or even blatantly saying something completely unsupported by the very documents she refered to. And of course, when she could not twist things to match her agenda, she'd make subtle insinuations of corruption. Like the time when a judge refused to rule against Microsoft in some case, "Isn't it weird this judge flew out to take a case that's not in his jurisdiction?" -- conveniently overlooking the fact that the judge in question had 1) more experience in the issues at hand and 2) ruled against Microsoft in a previous case.