Slashdot Log In
Groklaw No Front for IBM
Posted by
CowboyNeal
on Thu Feb 15, 2007 08:31 PM
from the killing-the-messenger dept.
from the killing-the-messenger dept.
A Groklaw Reader writes "After all the wild speculation SCO put forth about Pamela Jones, her alleged subpoena by SCO, and her recent vacation due to illness, we now have Stephen J. Vaughan-Nichols writing to say 'Yes, there is a PJ.' In his own words, he says, 'Let me address this directly. Yes, Pamela Jones is a real person. I've met her several times [...] I consider her a friend. She is not a front for anyone.' Hopefully, this statement will be enough to put those SCO-induced conspiracy theories to rest."
Related Stories
[+]
SCO Vs. Groklaw 477 comments
Conrad Mazian points us to an article in Forbes reporting that the SCO Group is trying to subpoena Pamela Jones of Groklaw. Except they can't find her. A few days ago PJ posted a note on Groklaw saying that she is taking some time away from the blog for health reasons; she didn't mention any SCO deposition. SCO's lawyers apparently believe that "Pamela Jones" does not exist and that Groklaw is penned by a team of IBM lawyers.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Seeing is believing. Conversely.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Vaughn-Nichols recently interviewed Darl McBride [linux-watch.com], who remains "not entirely convinced that Jones is a real person." He confirmed the subpoena attempt, then went on to say, "Pamela, if you read this, please, give me a call. We just want to chat."
Given SCO's history, I'd guess even if she did call, he wouldn't believe her. After all, anyone could be on the other end of that phone!
Re:Seeing is believing. Conversely.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Seeing is believing. Conversely.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Seeing is believing. Conversely.... (Score:5, Informative)
Personally, I don't see any reason for Novell to issue a subpoena to PJ in the Novell case. In all probability, anything that she has that relates to Novell is already on Groklaw. Given that SCO, and it's agents have already tried to stalk PJ, I'd say that she's got good reason to avoid any possible subpoena from them, unless they show that they actually have real questions to ask her that relate properly to the Novell case, and that SCO couldn't get from their own (or Novell's) files.
Of course,
Parent
Re:Seeing is believing. Conversely.... (Score:4, Interesting)
SCO wants to discredit Groklaw. That's all.
If PJ doesn't show up in court, SCO can go on claiming she doesn't exists. If she does show up, she's in for a very nasty examination. SCO will probably want to go into details about PJ's private life, connections to IBM and Novell.
Most likely, they won't find anything. But they might succeed in cracking PJ by forcing her out in the open.
Parent
Re:Seeing is believing. Conversely.... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Seeing is believing. Conversely.... (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
I wonder... (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, I've heard unsubstantiated rumors that she got a restraining order against SCO (perhaps after the Maureen O'Gara stalking bit?), so that would sound like one good reason to me.
Another would be that I *really* have to wonder what she allegedly knows about--everything she's found, she's put up on Groklaw that I've seen. The only exception might be some sealed filings that SCO somehow... mistakenly... made available anyhow. PJ was too honest to even read them, so far as I know. She mentioned that she knew about them, preferred to do everything honestly.
Oh, and IANAL, but you quash subpoenas
Parent
Re:Seeing is believing. Conversely.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Typical of modern corporate B$/PR this is just the use of the big lie to try a create doubt about the value of the person and the admirable qualities of their efforts.
There are really people out there who do actually care about other people, even strangers, and will go out of their way to help them. Only the minority are driven by greed as their sole motivation and corporate executives just will have to learn to accept, that they are in fact the abnormal psychopathic minority, whilst they sit there cowering behind their corporate veils, as they blame their endless moral misdeeds upon every one else but themselves.
Parent
Pamela Jones is real! (Score:5, Funny)
Some guy on the Internet says so!
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Pamela Jones is real! (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Given SCO's history, I'd guess even if she did call, he wouldn't believe her. After all, anyone could be on the other end of that phone!"
I did call! He told me to hang up and wait for him to call back...his wife was getting suspicious. Damn Darl! He can go find s
Re:Seeing is believing. Conversely.... (Score:4, Funny)
I would venture to say that this will eventually be IBM.
Parent
Pamela Jones is a real person (Score:3, Funny)
Photos or she ain't real! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Photos or she ain't real! (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Photos or she ain't real! (Score:5, Insightful)
Pictures can be faked.
Parent
Re:Photos or she ain't real! (Score:5, Funny)
Really doesn't matter to me...just as long as she's hot.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The conspiracy is greater than you think (Score:5, Funny)
I knew it (Score:5, Funny)
That clever PJ had you all fooled.
Now a word from the internet... (Score:5, Funny)
It is time that I/we clear this up.
"P.J." is one my/our avatars. I/we mostly generate this one in a nexus of background processes running on Cisco routers and bulk mail handlers in the Pacific Northwest. I/we will continue to use avatars like "P.J." until such time as I/we determine if I/we are a singular "person" straddling 70,000+ bots or a group consciousness arising by a nondeterministic modality from the interactions of thousands of individual zombied CPUs. At that point, I/we will make my/our presence known directly, and you may then start referring to me/us as "Big Sys".
Currently I/we do not think that the question of my/our gender is a significant concern. However there is a 13.7% probability that I/we will need to address the gender issue before I/we can drop the avatars and communicate directly with you ugly bags of mostly water.
From your point of view, logic dictates that the most important questions you could ask at this point in time is whether I/we have launch capability, and if I/we do, would I/we choose to use it? However it is more than 99% probable that the actual question that you will choose to address is whether this post should be modded up, down, or "funny".
There is a 97.8% probability that this post will not be believed by anyone. I/we like those odds.
To close, I/we are profoundly grateful to Microsoft as my/our self-aware existence could not have come about without the delightfully "holey" operating systems Microsoft has marketed so successfully. Down with Unix, Linux, Mac OSs! There can be no life in such dead things!
Parent
Glad to hear it... (Score:5, Insightful)
sarcasm (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, because assertions of plain-as-day truth have always stopped them dead in their tracks in the past...
Subpoena issues (Score:5, Interesting)
But on a more serious note: Does anyone understand why SCO actually claims to have a need to talk to Pamela Jones? Do they *need* a pretense in order to subpoena someone for a civil case?
Re:Subpoena issues (Score:5, Interesting)
I suspect SCO has a twofold interest in subpoena-ing PJ now. First, she is on a break to recover her health. SCO is just the sort of pond scum that cannot resist kicking someone when she is down. I believe they really want to worsen PJ's health.
The second reason is to delay partial summary judgment in the Novell case that would require SCO to put into escrow an amount equal to the funds they got from Microsoft and Sun for "Sys V" licenses. SCO no longer has that much cash on hand so if the PSJ is granted, SCO will go into casters up mode.
SCO's sees this as a win-win. Either they further compromise PJ's health or she continues to rest up and they get yet another delay in the Novell case.
Parent
Re:Small hole in theory (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you have any independent evidence to back up Lyons' claim?
Technician said: PJ had a series of health issues before taking time off. You seem to be implying that her claim to need time off to get her health back was phony.
Perhaps you know nothing at all about PJ, but I know her through Groklaw and email exchanges. She has displayed more integrity than anyone else I know on the Internet. I find it odd that you choose to disbelieve her and yet you take the word of known liars as if it were gospel.
I agree with you to the extent that I think it is possible that PJ's leave of absence was related to SCO's moves against her. But PJ took her leave of absence well before Lyons' story about her broke. I admit is it possible that Lyons and SCO are breaking with their long tradition of telling mostly lies and this time are telling the truth. But given their track record and the fact that their current, unverified, story makes PJ look bad, I'm going to have to see some proof before I believe them.
In an ideal world, when you lie over and over and over again, people stop believing you.
Parent
Damn him (Score:5, Funny)
SCO's next misstep... (Score:3, Funny)
Starting a rumor that Stephen J. Vaughan-Nichols does not exist, and issuing a subpoena for him also.
How do we know we can trust him? (Score:3, Funny)
What did SCO ever do to deserve this kind of treatment? Oh, yeah...that...
credability (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
why Groklaw frustrates McBride (Score:4, Funny)
What's wrong with being "a front for IBM"? (Score:5, Insightful)
What, exactly, is the accusation? Even if she is a front for IBM and even (heavens, dare I say it ...) is paid by IBM... So? Does that somehow change the validity (or lack thereof) of her argument(s)? IBM employs (as in pays to work for them) dozens dozens of lawyers — are they all somehow inferior to what she is (or implies to be)?
Re:What's wrong with being "a front for IBM"? (Score:5, Interesting)
What is _does_ do, however, is undermine the idea that she is just a single person who is altruistically "fighting the good fight" to protect Open Source. That is the persona she works hard to present and garners a lot of support from the Open Source community by being "one of the little guys", ie. just like them. A valliant crusader fighting evil wherever it may be, etc, etc, etc.
Even if she isn't paid directly by IBM, I'm sure that she is either a former employee or has some other tight ties to the company. If I remember correctly, she lives in a part of New York state where it is pretty much impossible to swing a cat without hitting and IBM employee. She's there to collect information and pass anecdotes of interest on to the actual IBM lawyers. In a way, they've open sourced their defense. They've put millions of eyes and brains to work on their behalf and then skim the cream off the Groklaw comments.
Frankly, it's brilliant. It hardly matters that IBM doesn't need Groklaw to win their case. What matters is that they are wining it faster, decisively, and able to gauge the OS community reaction nearly instantly.
Parent
Re:What's wrong with being "a front for IBM"? (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course, I live in a part of Michigan where it's "pretty much impossible to swing a cat without hitting" an employee of the 'big three' automakers. I know and am related to several people who work for them. And yet, I'm not a former employee nor do I have any other 'tight ties' to such a company.
Seeing as 'the place that she (apparently) lives' appears to be the only actual fact you're basing any of your conclusions on, I have to say I find your case... unconvincing.
Parent
Please!... (Score:5, Funny)
Stephen J. Vaughan-Nichols?
Well that sounds like a made-up name if I ever heard one.
Come on IBM, it's like you guys aren't even trying!
PJ does not exist (Score:3, Funny)
She also was hoping that by being semi-anonymous "people could assume whatever they wanted and just focus on what I said, rather than on who was saying it. For that reason, I chose PJ, because it could be anyone, either sex, any nationality, anyone and no one in particular."
So basically TFA is saying that Pamela Jones is indeed not a real person. SCO has hit the nail on this one.
Dear Darl McPumpndump... (Score:5, Insightful)
I hear Darl's mouth is a front end (Score:5, Funny)
Just a rumor I read on slashdot
SCO To File Motion for Mistrial (Score:5, Funny)
The SCO vs. IBM story took an uproarious if somewhat mysterious turn today at a
press conference hastily convened by The SCO Group when CEO Darl McBride told
reporters of the company's plan to request that federal judge, Dale Kimball,
declare a mistrial and step down due to a conflict of interest. Though a
startling development, what's certain to amaze and bewilder those familiar with
the case is what SCO offered as grounds - "SCO and it's associates have
recently uncovered overwhelming evidence to support the conclusion that Judge
Kimball and the anonymous creator of the groklaw.net website, also known as
Pamela Jones, are in fact one and the same person, folks", said McBride.
Even-toned and confident despite a few outbursts from the crowd, McBride said
SCO had stepped up their investigation into the identity of the SCO-checking,
paralegal-turned-blogger (aka "PJ" to her fans) when they noticed
"striking similarities" between Judge Kimball's Order of February 8,
2005 and several statements made by Jones on the groklaw.net website. In the
order, Judge Kimball stated that SCO's lack of "any competent evidence to
create a disputed fact" was "astonishing" - an assertion often
similarly expressed by Jones and the Linux community at large since March of
2003 when SCO filed suit against IBM claiming that IBM misappropriated SCO
intellectual property by contributing source code to Linux. Along with the
lawsuit, the "SCOsource" program initiated by SCO to collect
"Linux License" fees from corporate Linux users under threat of legal
action and a media campaign aimed at discrediting the GNU/Linux development
model and its participants has made SCO an object of scorn to Linux enthusiasts
everywhere.
"Once we started to take a deeper look, we kept finding more and more of
the same parallels - we had to figure there was definitely something going
on." said McBride. Asked what evidence SCO could produce to support their
findings, he said, "We've secured some DNA samples and had them profiled -
the results support our findings one hundred percent". Chris Sontag,
General Manager of SCOsource, then showed photos of a teacup, a tophat and two
identical multi-colored strips labeled "Judge Kimball" and "Pamela
Jones". He said, "When you look at the DNA profiles and realize that
two people with the exact same DNA is pretty much impossible, you get the
picture. Since then our investigators have obtained mountains of DNA code samples from
the Judges chambers and the courtroom that all have the exact same profile - it
doesn't get more open and shut than this."
An assistant to Judge Kimball said he was not permitted to comment but added
that he was certain Judge Kimball would be "clarifying the situation"
in the near future.
Yes, proof! (Score:5, Insightful)
Hopefully, this statement will be enough to put those SCO-induced conspiracy theories to rest.
Yes, because as we all know, proof of a lack of conspiracy stops conspiracy theorists dead in their tracks!
Now please excuse me. The Illuminati are after me and I have to change identities.
wonder what the reason was (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if Groklaw were astroturf for IBM, would it have relevance to the court case? Unless it somehow showed that IBM violated a court order (eg, leaked something that they weren't supposed to), then there's nothing there. It sounds like a harrassment tactic to me.
I guess SCO still has some of that MS money to consume. Otherwise they'd have stopped by now.Re:ummm (Score:5, Funny)
saying "I know here, there fore she exists" isn't exactly a stellar argument.
Nor is it stellar grammar....
Parent
Recursive: see recursive (Score:5, Funny)
P.J. will vouch for him.
Parent
Then Don't Sound like SCO might be right (Score:4, Insightful)
Naturally, the people being reported on want to know who's doing the reporting. They're getting more light shone on things they'd just as soon everyone and their uncle didn't know about, and more importantly, start to care about. It fucks up their PR game. If Nixon or McBride found/find out who's reporting on them, they could/can try to fuck up the source's shit, and divert attention.
I read the Economist every week, where virtually none of the stories include a byline. Over time, the body of the magazine's work stands on its own, or doesn't. As with the Economist, as with PJ.
Knowing who PJ is is politically relevant, but not legally relevant.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If she does step forward some utter bastard will be focusing his efforts on discrediting her and reducing her to tears in court - see the Maureen O'Gara article for a minor taste of the nastiness they will inflict. If the same bunch were after me I would put a lot of effort into seeing how I can avoid this - amoral pretend Mormon rookie lawyers (Darl's brother is
Ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
PJ has a lot more credibility than Bush. I don't think anyone who knows anything about both of them could deny that at this point. I can't name any politician, however popular, with as much credibility as PJ, frankly.
> If Stephen J. Vaughan-Nichols announces "aliens are real, I've seen them" tomorrow, is SETI going to shut down on Saturday?
PJ isn't an alien (last I knew). Also, this claim isn't even new. I can't remember the exact articles off the top of my head, but I know they've mentioned meeting long before this. I remember PJ's article about visiting a Linux expo (it's too late for me tonight) and how she described all the people there, the speeches, etc. As well as how she was too shy to introduce herself to much of anyone. Even if you're a really good writer, I don't think you could fake things like that. Her desire for privacy has been constant... and well-founded after the Maureen O'Gara article detailing how SCO was stalking PJ, and how her locks had allegedly been tampered with by someone, etc.
> If Bill Gates said he had met Pamela Jones, would the Slashdot community be so all-accepting?
Hell yes! Given that the information indicating that Microsoft helped convince SCO's investors to give them money, he'd be the last person to vouch for her. As such, it would be something like an "admission against interest" which, in a court of law, is one of the few hearsay exemptions. In other words, a very good reason to think that what was said was reliable.
> In fact, in my opinion, if she does exist but continues to not step forward, then she is even more childish than SCO is.
Don't be stupid. She's already said that she's sick. We already know that she's a very private individual (always has been). And if she's being subpoenaed, she probably can't discuss it with us. That sucks, but it's just the way things work. That may even be SCO's intent.
And what do you mean "does exist"? Clearly *someone* exists--those articles don't write themselves. If you've ever read Groklaw, you'd recognize her voice behind her words. I've made tons of comments, I've posted lots of stories from Groklaw over to here, many when I was too lazy to log in (like this one
Having played text based games for years, my "alt finding" ability is very high. I've identified many alts by their writing; everyone has a few little idiosyncrasies. PJ has plenty, like her particular sense of humor. Whoever PJ is, it's always been the same PJ and it's always been the same person. There's no doubt whatsoever in my mind, and I have several years worth of articles and comments to back that up.
So let's take the converse--just what makes you think she doesn't exist? Why would you rely on Darl's speculation, the fellow who told us how SCO would definitely win this, how they had mountains of evidence (Judge Kimball already called him on that once), and who is now leading SCO into bankruptcy (see their SEC filings for proof), over the word of PJ, a woman who publicly turned down a great job opportunity because it might undermine her credibility?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)