Groklaw

Not really?

For general tech? Sure. For open source? It's hard to beat the in-depth coverage of http://lwn.net and http://www.groklaw.net
I have become increasingly disappointed with Wired over the last few years, it has gotten to the point where I deliberately avoid them even though they have soem great writers.

I'm from Ireland but not living there at the moment so my go to source for quality reportage of all things Oirish is http://www.irishtimes.com

I like to dip into The Economist for geopolitical stuff but it's surprising how many of the stories that would interest me from The Economist hit the main page of HN anyway.

I have been on /. for many many years - I have a 5 digit UID :) - but I stopped going there religiously a number of years ago. Having said that, I have returned there more and more often recently as I have noticed an unusual amount of group-think on HN when it comes to certain matters and that kind of irks me.

I go to to http://counterpunch.org/ to counterbalance the establishment reporting of the traditional mass media. This because I find that my political, social and economic views (which I know to be held by most of my peers) are underreported and underrepresented by the corporate media.

There are other niche sites that I visit but these are particular to my tastes. There are a couple of blogs I follow on RSS because I like the author's style and voice, these are all political, philosophical or literary in nature.

From kalleboo's link, here's the particular image from Samsung's brief to look at:

http://www.groklaw.net/images/Samsung-3.jpg

If it's true, it seems pretty persuasive.

(The document is pretty amusing in general: "Design was not the only thing Apple took from other companies in developing the iPhone. While Apple touts itself in the popular press as a company of 'firsts,' it recognizes the opposite internally. As Apple admitted in internal emails, Apple was not the first [redacted] [Redacted] Ex. 4 (DX 578). Nor was it [redacted] Id. Indeed, as one Apple employee explained to an overly enthusiastic marketer, [redacted] Id."

I love the idea that Apple's internal emails actually make frequent use of the word [redacted]. Like, "Hey, has anyone seen my [redacted]? I think I might have left it at a [redacted]. Hopefully that [redacted] reporter doesn't get his hands on it.")

> Wait, you have access to the oral arguments?

Don't need oral arguments for the results of the first trial and the arguments filed in the appeal of that first trial.

Here's the final judgement from the first trial: http://www.groklaw.net/pdf3/OraGoogle-1211.pdf

Note on the second page:

> With respect to Oracle’s claim for relief for copyright infringement, judgment is entered
in favor of Google and against Oracle except as follows: the rangeCheck code in TimSort.java
and ComparableTimSort.java, and the eight decompiled files (seven “Impl.java” files and one
“ACL” file),

And here's Oracle’s reply brief in the appeal; the relevant part on this issue is under the heading THERE IS NO “DE MINIMIS” DEFENSE TO COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT.

http://www.groklaw.net/pdf4/OraGoogleAppeal-134.pdf

Wow, I followed this so closely back in the day[0]. It was a fascinating thing to unpack in real-time as it was happening.

I burned hours per week on Groklaw, partly out of fascination around all of the parties, especially outside of SCO and IBM, and the moves they were making to take advantage of the situation. But I think I simply enjoyed reading the deep analysis the community around that site, and it's author, maintained.

One can sue for any reason, no matter how ridiculous. Hopefully this just gets tossed out early on this time around.

[0] http://www.groklaw.net (kind of surprised at the lack of "s", but most of my reading pre-dated LetsEncrypt)

Wired's article certainly presents Apple's side of the story. Although, the Samsung take is pretty interesting: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120726121512518

Apparently, Apple argues that FRAND patents should be effectively free, estimating that Samsung's standards patents are worth less than 1¢ per device. Whereas, Apple thinks its design patents are worth $24 per device, and their utility patents are another $3 on top of that. Were that to hold, it would eliminate Samsung's profit margin. So, it's hard not to read this as Apple trying to cage viable competitors entirely out of the market through legal maneuvering.

To a point where your program won't understand/be able to edit a simple document created by Microsoft tools. In some cases, you'll see an embedded binary blob that's actually an ActiveX executable in an OLE container.

Here's some classic rants:

https://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2008/03/02/On-OOXML

https://ooxmlisdefectivebydesign.blogspot.com/

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070123071154671#Ecma_376_relies_on_undisclosed_information

(especially in combination with: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070123071154671#End-User_License_Agreements_.28EULAs.29_may_forbid_full_implementation )