Groklaw Articles Ending on May 16th

But Grocklaw is still needed.

As a forum which brings competent review and appraisal to stories that straddle the mostly neglected intersection of technology and law, and recruits both the solid IT expertise and the solid legal expertise needed together to promote a real understanding of these stories, and addresses them from a reasonably well-informed and objective perspective, Groklaw has been invaluable, and is still needed.

I never saw Groklaw as an "anti-SCO" site, but as a law and technology site, whose focus was somewhat hijacked by the SCOG attempt to steal Linux. There are are still new and ongoing issues which need the kind of attention that Groklaw can bring to bear - and so far, only Groklaw has.

Even today, the news makes abundantly clear -- with a steady stream of new stories such as the Sony v GeoHotz case, the Novell patents (CPTN) deal, and many other similar issues -- that a site such as Groklaw, which can provide an objective and fair-minded yet FOSS-friendly perspective (or for that matter, even a FOSS-sceptical perspective!) to the legal facets of socially significant "technology stories" is an immensely valuable resource and will be difficult to replace or even match.

The mainstream press and even the technology-oriented journals overlook or give only superficial attention to these issues. If Groklaw isn't addressing them, will anybody else pay attention? Groklaw hasn't become out-dated. Far from it! But perhaps this is a felicitous moment for for PJ to stand-back, rest up, and reassess Grocklaw's focus and priorities, and remember what it's raison d'etre has really been all along.

And if PJ still decides she really is done, her contribution has been very substantial, and greatly appreciated.

Quoting: OTOH, I'm not sure "IP-experts" do know about patent validity

I disagree with this part of your statement. I think they very much DO KNOW about patent validity, but just don't care. They are not paid to care, and instead, chase the money. I think it's hard not to know that patents for things like, "a computer connected wirelessly to the Internet & mounted on or in the dashboard of a car," is blatantly obvious to everyone, let alone someone skilled in the art, and forgetting prior art...

But I agree with uncertainty part of your statement, and believe they are banking on the uncertainty & cost of litigation to force cross-patent deals. If all these suits were just posturing for cross-patent deals, I'd say the "IP experts" carved a nice little snake oil industry for themselves. But things, like "The Halloween documents," don't support that.

And, I am sure that M$ is not alone in using patent suits in a "submarine patent" way, resorting to cross licensing deals as a "Plan B," when they are unsure of their footing. But, then again, the use of such obvious patents in the law suits begs the question of whether they know how the defending side will take it, maybe as a "wink and nod." So, what they COULD be doing is characterizing damages as injury, to soften the tax blow of licensing/vending deals, and using the Court as a pawn to do it. Think Lisa Marie Presley & Michael Jackson divorce settlement (and the rights to Elvis's songs part of the deal)... And using shills like Florian to make it all look Kosher in the press...

Just a thought...