SCO Vs. Groklaw 477
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.
So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
What are the grounds for a subpoena? I don't think she has ever made even a passing hint that she has any inside knowledge of anything. On the contrary, it's all just commentary on publicly available filings.
However, I will say that the timing and content of her blog post is totally consistent with someone trying not to be found. Just rm -fP your files and don't log in to the server for a while. As long as you haven't left a trail through billing or domain registration, you'd be nearly impossible to find.
Re:Wouldn't be the first time (Score:5, Insightful)
Darl is a paranoid maniac.
Wait, how exactly is this news? We all already knew Darl was a paranoid maniac. kdawson, are you trolling for pageviews or something?
A slight to EFF? (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, so that's what EFF does.
Good thing Forbes cleared that up for me, I thought they do a lot more than that [eff.org]. And what does San Fran have to do with this case? EFF is an national organization -- and though it is based in SF, the article misrepresents tham as being a local group.
Delay #... (Score:3, Insightful)
I sincerely hope SCO rots in hell and as for Mr. DM... A jail cell looks nice.
Delay (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, and of course you'd be right to think that they're probably trying to make her personal information public. I think most people here should remember when Maureen O'Gara wrote that nasty piece with information gathered by SCO's PIs, who have been stalking PJ for a long time now, so far as I'm aware.
As for what they'll do with that information, I don't know. But SCO put out fake signs back when they were picketed, so no matter what they do I bet it'll be something mean. Of course, if *that* happens, you can bet that someone will be looking up Darl's home phone number and posting it in that Slashdot story. You know, just in case someone wanted to help him understand why people don't like it when you post their personal information...
Daniel Lyons strikes again (Score:5, Insightful)
Forbes again. (Score:4, Insightful)
I wouldn't take any of it too seriously.
Work Product Privilege (Score:5, Insightful)
Normally an attorney's work product (memos, notes, theories, etc created as part of the attorney's work for a client) cannot be discovered by the opposing side. It works like attorney-client privilege.
However, just like the attorney-client privilege, the work product privilege can be waived intentionally or unintentionally if the attorney (or client) shares the information with someone outside the attorney-client relationship. SCO's theory may well be that if an IBM lawyer posts to Groklaw an analysis of the case that amounts to a summary of IBM's theory on the case, then SCO should be allowed access to all of the attorney's related work product. Depending on the judge, SCO may even be granted access to all of the work product of every attorney at that firm assigned to the SCO v. IBM case, although that's pretty unlikely unless the judge has some pet peeve about attorneys commenting to the media/public about ongoing cases.
So, while this may seem like just another last-ditch delay tactic by SCO (and it probably is), there may well be a not-entirely-unreasonable legal basis for it.
(Note: I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.)
say a word for PJ! (Score:5, Insightful)
Quirk: She ardently enforces a policy of no cursing (she gives warning to users who write "BS"). She claims this is to keep discussion respectful.
She stands tall for what she believes is right, whether it relates to the SCO case or not. She has focused on many other issues, including great coverage of the current MS anti-trust case, and the MS/Novel deal, a well as long and recurring essays on ethics.
She graciously defers to people who know more than her on technical issues, and is willing to change her mind.
The underlying themes of her blog (often discussed explicitly) are:
* The US legal system is an attempt to be fair under difficult and complex situations -- it's hard to see this sometimes, but cynicism is an incorrect analysis.
* Business can be good, but business does NOT mean a sacrifice of all values except a quick buck. She is very pro-business.
* A person who stands firm in their knowledge of truth, even as others attack them, has a very difficult road ahead of them; but those who lie, attack, or surrender face harsh spiritual repercussions. In this, as in almost all of her attitude, a Christian sensibility shines through. But rather than being off-putting, dogmatic, or familiar, she comes across as convincing, passionate, and wise.
Thank you PJ! You are a role model for us all!
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's comparable to Captain Queeg's determined investigation of the theft of ice cream in the classic Bogart film, The Caine Mutiny [wikipedia.org]. Lacking anything else of substance to confirm his paranoid belief of mass insubordination, Captain Queeg becomes consumed with the delusion that a conspiracy is involved in the disappearance of ice cream on his ship. Unfortunately, this paranoia and further indecision under crisis results in his being relieved of duty.
SCO's relief of duty isn't far away, from reviewing their financials (absent third party financing at this point, 2007 should be their last as an operating concern). Pursuing delusions of a grand IBM conspiracy through the proxy of Pamela is unfortunate. I can certainly understand the absolute frustration some of Salt Lake City's finest socialites must feel in being beaten by unworthy middle class losers, open source geeks and an old money company like IBM. They were confident that political connections, "contributions" to candidates like dear Senator Hatch, ownership of the state judicial system and other entitlements the Salt Lake City elite expect on their home turf would extend to this litigation. Those born with the proverbial silver spoon affixed to their rear egress-orifice simply can't conceive that those from lessor social classes could ever best them.
Having closed at $1.01 today, SCO investors (even those who have shorted the stock) need to remember that when this security stresses, liquidity will be impossible to come by. Expect some real fireworks soon when shareholders discover liquidity necessary to exit is gone and a "bank run" occurs. Those considering shareholder action need to move before the management team constructs their parachutes in the next month or so, leaving nothing for creditors and litigants.
Time's running out...
paradox (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This is silly (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Does it matter? (Score:5, Insightful)
This Time, It's Personal (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:did yall check the whois for groklaw? (Score:2, Insightful)
Until GoDaddy decided that one unfounded letter is enough for them to shut down your whole domain^W^W^W^W^Wreveal your true identity.
I thought SCO "outed" her a couple yrs ago (Score:2, Insightful)
What happened to that?
Besides, if it were a team of people that would be too good. She writes like a middle aged Scrabble-playing, mystery novel-reading (or writing), global warming-researching type. One person, not many. If IBM had talent like that the Pentagon should hire that group for the propaganda war against Bin Laden.
Re:say a word for PJ! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Work Product Privilege (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Statistical analysis (Score:3, Insightful)
A) It wouldn't mean that the one person writing all of the posts isn't a shill from IBM.
B) Sometimes people write differently depending on the mood they're in. One minute they might be using proper grammar and punctuation, the next OMG PONIES~1!!!
How Can This Matter to the Trial? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why not subpoena Reuters and AAP? Or anyone who's written an opinion piece about SCO?
SCO has fundamentally confused inputs with outputs. Groklaw is an output of the trial, not an input. Unless they can show Pamela Jones has some priveleged information, they're just wasting time here clutching at straws.
If SCO is clutching at straws here, wasting time, they should be punished and punished hard. I'd like to see jail time for management here, and maybe for lawyers. Should intentionally wasting the court's time be considered contempt?
Nauseating ... (Score:5, Insightful)
About 6 months ago there was this publicist "Maureen O'Gara" who actually went so far as to try and physically stalk Jones, and who saw fit to importune her mother. O'Gara seemed to have become obsessed with Pamela Jones who invariably pointed out holes, inaccuracies, misrepresentations, and plain lack of understanding in O'Gara's articles, and wanted to turn a factual businesslike dispute into something personal by putting Jones's address online. Regretfully, in the good old US of A this means that you will henceforth have to live with the increased probability that some random nutjob will take a shot at you or will otherwise assault you.
Having read Groklaw from the beginning, and having read a sizeable portion of the background materials, I'm firmly convinced that SCO's so-called "case" was only ever a transparant, meritless, and rather dirty attempt to extort money from Linux and Linux users, fortunately based on nothing but sloppy research, slipshod reasoning, and a shameless abuse of the US legal system to boot by trying to cash in on the threat of nuisance lawsuits.
And this "first" is brought to you by Forbes magazine, which is sort of interesting. Why? If you ever were on the lookout for biased, distorted, and inaccurate reporting favouring SCO and bashing all things GPL and Linux ... look no further than Forbes Magazine. Recently they stopped supporting SCO publicly, perhaps because it became obvious that SCO has no evidence of any kind for its grandiose claims. Forbes is also the rag that proudly trumpeted in 2003 that "Linux crunchies" should take SCO's allegations seriously because SCO was such a mean opponent in court and in business: "what SCO wants SCO gets". Forbes is also the magazine that touted dirty business tactics as "capitalism", and was always ready to defend any SCO tactic, no matter how underhanded.
Clearly, as others already remarked, the identity of Pamela Jones has no bearing whatsoever on SCO's case. Jones isn't a party in the case, and neither her testimony nor her identity can make any difference one way or another. Except perhaps with one single exception. A Jury trial. You know ... the place where the accumulated evidence of years is put through the mind of 10 lay persons in a few daily sessions, who then have to decide on guilt or innocence. That jury cannot access background materials on its own accord, but has to take all of its information from opposing lawyers. They may take notes, but that's it. Not put on a good enough emotional show, and you just might get that jury to overlook some home truths ... if they are buried deep enough.
SCO has had two-thirds of their case thrown out already by the magistrate judge for failing to produce competent evidence for their claims, but a lot of the more vague claims (as in "Linux infringes on our IP because it used Methods and Concepts that belong to us. No your honour ... we can't show you the files and line-numbers files where this happens in Linux because we're talking about methods and concepts, not actual code. It's more diffuse.") are still alive.
*sighs* This sort of talk will get you absolutely nowhere with anyone who is computer-literate ... but there's the rub. SCO can ensure that no-one who even remotely knows what the case is about will be on that jury. Why? Because if they're knowledgeable they will have heard about SCO versus IBM, will have read media coverage, e.g. Groklaw, and will have laughed their head off. Can't be
Coincidence? (Score:3, Insightful)
I mean what if she is actually a lawyer at a firm that works with SCO (or a SCO employee)? Hell, if she is any lawyer, para-legal or judge the revelation that she runs groklaw could cause serious problems for her. Many big companies, especially software companies, might be quite reluctant to trust their work to a firm whose employee is so passionately advocating for free software on the Internet.
Maybe she is afraid that as a witness she will get tangled up in the case and run into trouble blogging about it? Or maybe she just doesn't want to spend many days in court testifying. Maybe she is only 16 or received money from IBM so she could devote more time to posting. There are a 100 reasons she might have not to want to receive the subpoena.
Obviously there is some reason she doesn't want to be really identified or who she really was would be listed on wikipedia. This reason might be totally benign or not so benign but since it appears she has taken pains to keep her identity secret it is far to much of a coincidence to think she decided to take time off after many years just when SCO is trying to subpoena her.
Re:Does it matter? (Score:0, Insightful)
In this case, who Pamela Jones is is certainly less interesting than what she's written. A modern day case of Shakespearean identity where we're grateful for what's been written even if there is controversy over the author's very existence.
An attempt to shut down Groklaw? (Score:5, Insightful)
Another reason why SCOX's case depends on showing that she had inside info from IBM. If you agree that a person with some legal background, with research contributed by a loose group of volunteers over the internet, but no inside info from IBM, could put together documentation that so totally destroys SCOX's legal case...
then you have to agree that a university student with some computing background, with research contributed by a loose group of volunteers over the internet, but no inside info from IBM, could put together an OS that totally destroys SCOX's OS in the marketplace... oops.
Re:Does it matter? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Does it matter? (Score:5, Insightful)
Often the message is subjective. Knowing who the messenger is provides some context to the message; even more so when you find deception involved.
Re:Does it matter? (Score:5, Insightful)
I love reading Groklaw, and have learned a ton about the legal process in the bargain. The best articles I've found are the ones with the dullest titles: "SCO's motion to reconsider second part of the ruling with the..." These are the ones where PJ says, "OK, here's where the judge is being asked by the lawyers according to this procedure which was developed to make sure that..." yadda yadda. That's when I learn the most. I also enjoy reading her triumphant gloating whenever IBM snags a victory, which has been often.
When the articles have provocative titles, it's typically her going on a rant. While I agree with much (if not all) of what she says on these rants, they're not typically very educational -- to me. She's preaching to the choir. So I don't get as much out of it. I kind of wish she wouldn't write these, and this article in Forbes is what happens when you mix in the bad with the good like this. She's said some really nasty things about Forbes. It isn't right for Forbes to stoop to -- well, the level she accuses them of being on anyway -- but if she could hold off on the name-calling, she probably doesn't draw their ire in such a personal attack piece.
But then, given Forbes' record, they probably would do this, anyway, so what do I know? (Expect to see a piece attacking Slashdot poster Rimbo soon.)
Re:An attempt to shut down Groklaw? (Score:4, Insightful)
Remember, PJ may have given us 3000-some odd articles, but if her goal was to write a bunch of stuff, she would have written and sold a book. Her point was to bring together the "hackers" of the legal field with the hackers from the computing field, and in doing so create a voice for freedom loving technology users everywhere. You just can't kill that.
You just can't.
Re:I'd be stoked (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll bet she wouldn't be anonymous for very long if she used Microsoft products.
I suspect SCO has several reasons for this action: (Score:2, Insightful)
#1: Intimidate anyone who will give IBM favorable press.
#2: Drag PJ into court where she can be bound by court order not to discuss aspects of the case she was questioned on (and she would be questioned on everything).
#3: Punish PJ for giving IBM favorable press (This goes back to #1).
#4: Attempt to get PJ to say something under oath that she can be sued for (slander, libel, ect.) or charged with (Perjury for example).
#5: Delaying tactic (as mentioned many times in other posts).
#6: Simply to put a face with a name/website that SCO and/or their legal team consider an enemy.
They may other reasons but I suspect that these are the ones motivating them.
Re:Does it matter? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This is silly (Score:4, Insightful)
Then you obviously work for IBM.
That's basic conspiracy theory stuff. Anyone who successfully manage to discredit the conspiracy theory, are themselves a part of the conspiracy.
Re:Does it matter? (Score:1, Insightful)
CPW
Re:MOD PARENT UP! (Score:3, Insightful)
But I do remember a little bit of what happened to Susan/Shiksaa of NANAe just a few months before Groklaw began, and it's a good thing that PJ has managed to stay hidden. Any TLC (TINC) members here who could tell?
Re:Does it matter? (Score:5, Insightful)
You certainly should take into account the messenger when attributing credibility to statements of fact. Inferences, however, should stand on their own and the messenger should have no effect on how you view them.
Also: if you are getting all your information channeled by a certain source, then you should question the objectivity of the section of information.
In the case of Groklaw, PJ is commenting on documents and proceedings that are matters of public record. In effect, she is making no assertion that she has any special first hand knowledge of the case, so you must decide the degree to which you believe that the court documents actually represent the statements of the parties to the case.
Furthermore, while she may be the most comprehensive information source on the SCO case, we have access to mainstream media coverage and SCO's own statements. We are not in danger of seeing only data cherry picked by PJ to put SCO in a bad light.
Therefore, I'd say PJ's identity is not relevant.
Re:Ethics Rules and Devil's Advocate (Score:3, Insightful)
I just don't see it. If they wanted to do this, they could easily feed the information to someone else, and then they wouldn't even have to do the work themselves.
Re:This is silly (Score:2, Insightful)
You don't say so but being biased against SCO does not invalidate groklaw. Virtually everything written on groklaw is exhaustively sourced. If you prefer to not read the commentary because of it's obvious bias, the primary documents really support what Pamela is saying.
One wonders if, like Microsoft, the bias stems from consistent and very shady business and legal practices leading to some skepticism about the motives of the company in question.
Anyone who doesn't have an opinion about SCO simply doesn't know enough about this litigation. After years, there still isn't any evidence of their claims being true... nor is there any real support for their crazy legal theories. Couple that with all the attempts to discredit free software, linux, the GPL, and Pamela herself, is there anyone who's opinion isn't negative and therefore biased?
Re:Does it matter? (Score:5, Insightful)
Either you don't read Groklaw or don't understand what it is.
Groklaw is not ANTI 'SCO', it is PRO TRUTH and intended to educate about the legal process.
When TSG (The SCO Group) comes out with a claim, i.e., "mountains of evidence" or "copied code", Groklaw does not attack them. Instead, it says "show us the evidence, show us the code'.
I do not feel it is Groklaws fault that TSG is wanting to use lies, PR (is that redundant?), and FUD to try to prevail over IBM.
Groklaw points out when IBM is right and when they are wrong and they also point out when TSG is right and when they are wrong. That TSG has not been right is not due to Groklaw being 'antiSCO' but due to TSG not being right. Claims otherwise are just handwaving and attempts at distraction - "Look at the Wookie!"
What part of TSG claiming to own copyrights that they would have bought from Novell but Novell states were never sold would PJ be able to testify about?
In my opinion, any attempt to depose PJ would be a fishing expedition, looking for information to gag a journalist, not for information expected to be of value in the litigation at issue.
I also find it interesting that TSG has been claiming they knew all about PJ, but now they can't seem to find her. Looks to me like either their prior claims were true but they are bungling the service of the deposition, or their prior claims were lies. Putting my best PROSCO spin on the situation, they are either liars or incompetent.
If the emperor really is not wearing any clothing, then pointing out that the emperor is not wearing any clothes is not pro-emperor or anti-emperor, it is just the truth - no matter how inconvenient it might be for the emperor.
If TSG is lying, then pointing out that TSG is lying is not proSCO or antiSCO, it is just the truth - no matter how inconvenient it might be for TSG.
The whole premise behind it's existence was to oppose what amounts to an appropriation of an entire tranche of human creative thought by corporate interests using ethically questionable legal methods.
I think that is just a fortuitous result, the stated purpose of Groklaw is to examine and learn about the legal process using cases that are of interest. TSGs effort to extort fees from linux users definitely piques a lot of interest, and their claims, being so easily debunked, have made great fodder for the examination portion of the equation, and TSGs continued efforts to delay have contributed just as greatly to the education side of the equation.
I think TSGs efforts at "appropriation of an entire tranche of human creative thought by corporate interests using ethically questionable legal methods." is deplorable, and I applaud IBMs meticulous defense against basically baseless claims, but Groklaw is only highlighting TSGs mis-steps, not opposing them.
Light causes cockroaches to scurry for cover, but the light is not anti-cockroach, nor does it oppose cockroaches, it is just something the cockroaches don't like. Reminds me a lot of TSG and the truth.
Re:Ethics Rules and Devil's Advocate (Score:3, Insightful)
When I read this Forbes story and saw that SCO executives think that PJ is really a team of IBM lawyers, I laughed out loud, involuntarily. The idea is so ludicrous that all I could do was laugh. PJ is so on a different plane of existence and thought than any IBM lawyer I've ever met (or can imagine meeting) that it is just plain stupid of SCO to spend one minute thinking about this, much less spend time and resource trying to depose her.
In general, no one in any position of authority at IBM would ever seriously think about creating a false-front blog site for any reason. It's just not the way things are done at IBM. Those here who say "well it could be true" even from a devils-advocate point of view are just uninformed.
Furthermore, even if you dismiss the points above that (a) PJ and IBM are not aligned and (b) IBM would never do anything like this, there's also the point (c): What would IBM have to gain for this hugely risky undertaking? The open-source community is already totally on their side. They do their own legal research, thank you very much, and don't need help from groklaw. Why would anyone even come up with this plan in the first place?