Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts Government Caldera IBM News IT

Groklaw No Front for IBM 206

Posted by CowboyNeal
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Groklaw No Front for IBM

Comments Filter:
  • by Kelson (129150) * on Thursday February 15, 2007 @09:32PM (#18033466) Homepage Journal

    Hopefully, this statement will be enough to put those SCO-induced conspiracy theories to rest.

    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!

    • by MindStalker (22827) <mindstalker AT gmail DOT com> on Thursday February 15, 2007 @09:51PM (#18033654) Journal
      Either way they are issuing a supeana.. Meaning if she exist she will be forced to appear in court soon. And then this whole thing will be laid to rest.. End of story..
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        PJ has been the target of stalkers before. Because of that I suspect that if the process servers do manage to serve her with the subpoena, she'll request that the judge and the court make arrangements for her safety and anonymity while she gives her deposition.
      • by Schraegstrichpunkt (931443) on Thursday February 15, 2007 @11:20PM (#18034334) Homepage
        Can you issue subpoenas once the discovery process is over?
        • This subpoena is issued in the Novell case, which is still in discovery. Discovery is closed in the IBM case, which is why they probably didn't issue the subpoena there.

          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,

          • by ggeens (53767) <ggeens@@@iggyland...com> on Friday February 16, 2007 @03:49AM (#18035842) Homepage Journal

            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.

            • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

              by killjoe (766577)
              Lets say PJ is a crack whore who gives blowjobs for drugs. Let's say SCO introduces this evidence in court. How does this help their case? What if she is an IBM lawyer how does this help SCO in the novell case?

              Note that I firmly believe that the american justice system is so insane and unpredictable that a judge would allow evidence of her crackwhoredom to be used in court. The american justice system is just a crapshoot, you are better off throwing dice then hoping to get a just or sane result from it.
      • by twiddlingbits (707452) on Friday February 16, 2007 @12:31AM (#18034808)
        Not true. Subpoenas can be squashed by the lawyer of the person who was subpoenaed. It takes a good reason to get a judge to squash but it CAN be done.
        • I wonder... (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Xenographic (557057) on Friday February 16, 2007 @03:12AM (#18035678) Homepage Journal
          > It takes a good reason to get a judge to squash but it CAN be done.

          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 :] There's no 's' in quash. Alas, PJ never posted an article on how subpoenas work, so I don't know enough to know what she might do, but I suspect she'll get a lawyer to handle it for her whenever she finds out about it.
    • by rtb61 (674572) on Thursday February 15, 2007 @09:55PM (#18033688) Homepage
      They obviously know she is real and undoubtedly SCO or M$ or most likely both, had private investigators etc. track her down so that if any competitor was involved in any way shape or form with her, they could threaten the competitor with court actions.

      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.

      • by Anonymous Coward
        Maureen O'Gara is a yellow-rag hack "journalist" who employs stalking and harassment in place of genuine fact finding. Any bona fide PI would be incensed at being associated with such tactics (that "P" does stand for "Private"). Check the slashdot archives for a refresher [slashdot.org].
      • by mwvdlee (775178)
        I've seen people refer to MicroSoft as M$ before.
        But why isn't SCO referred to as $CO?
    • by 19thNervousBreakdown (768619) <davec-slashdot&lepertheory,net> on Thursday February 15, 2007 @09:58PM (#18033712) Homepage

      Some guy on the Internet says so!

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by alshithead (981606) *
      "Vaughn-Nichols recently interviewed Darl McBride, 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!"

      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
    • by LuYu (519260)

      "Pamela, if you read this, please, give me a call. We just want to chat."

      Darl McBride sounds like one of those lying cops in the movies. Does he honestly believe PJ will fall for that? I mean, she has been debunking his lies for years now. I think Darl really is an imbecile.

  • by justelite (990495) on Thursday February 15, 2007 @09:33PM (#18033468) Homepage
    I can see again! It is a miracle!
  • by liftphreaker (972707) on Thursday February 15, 2007 @09:33PM (#18033474)
    Photos of Pam Jones or she ain't real!
  • by QuickFox (311231) on Thursday February 15, 2007 @09:40PM (#18033530)

    we now have Stephen J. Vaughan-Nichols writing to say 'Yes, there is a PJ.'
    What's to say that he isn't fictitious too! If there are two fictitious persons I bet they'll stick together and back each other up.
  • And thus we have the wonderful "noshitsherlock" tag.
  • I knew it (Score:5, Funny)

    by Kohath (38547) on Thursday February 15, 2007 @09:41PM (#18033540)
    IBM is actually a front for Groklaw!

    That clever PJ had you all fooled.
    • by mysticgoat (582871) on Thursday February 15, 2007 @10:40PM (#18034048) Homepage Journal

      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!

    • Groklaw is a front for IBM USA, but IBM Russia is front for Groklaw!

  • Glad to hear it... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by LinuxGeek (6139) * <djand...nc@@@gmail...com> on Thursday February 15, 2007 @09:41PM (#18033542)
    She has been a great guide into the odd world of courts and lawyers so far. It's great to know that my paypal donations haven't just been beer money for IBM lawyers... :)
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      "She has been a great guide into the odd world of courts and lawyers so far. It's great to know that my paypal donations haven't just been beer money for IBM lawyers... :)"

      Honestly I wouldnt even be bothered if my donations were going to beer money for IBM lawyers. As long as they are fighting for OSS I wish them the best.

      But seriously, if PJ wasn't a team of lawyers then WTF HAVENT THEY HIRED HER!!! PJ has been successfully locating and presenting the ammunition IBM needs for their case. She is clearly wor
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by CmdrGravy (645153)
        Why haven't they hired her ?

        I would guess that firstly since Groklaw is doing such a great job of getting out the message that SCOs claims are totally baseless and it's doing so without any of IBMs money there's no need to hire her and secondly if they did hire her then she couldn't very well continue to run Groklaw with any sort of pretence at impartiality at all thus ruining what is a great propoganda tool for IBM.
  • sarcasm (Score:5, Insightful)

    by President_Camacho (1063384) on Thursday February 15, 2007 @09:43PM (#18033556) Homepage
    Hopefully, this statement will be enough to put those SCO-induced conspiracy theories to rest

    Of course, because assertions of plain-as-day truth have always stopped them dead in their tracks in the past...
    • by SeaFox (739806)

      Of course, because assertions of plain-as-day truth have always stopped them dead in their tracks in the past...

      Yes, SCO will now say they didn't have enough advance notice she was a real person and will need a delay in the beginning of their court cases to prepare after this shocking turn in events.
  • Subpoena issues (Score:5, Interesting)

    by DoofusOfDeath (636671) on Thursday February 15, 2007 @09:44PM (#18033574)
    OK, so now Stephen J. Vaughan-Nichols will get subpoenaed :)

    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)

      by DrJimbo (594231) on Thursday February 15, 2007 @11:14PM (#18034290)
      Yes, they need a pretext to subpoena someone. Otherwise politicians (and other people of interest) would be routinely subpoenaed for no good reason in cases they have nothing to do with.

      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.


      • 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.


        PJ took a needed rest after some time was spent trying to serve her. The process of trying to serve her started before she took leave.

        If she was tipped off that someone was stalking her (trying to serve her), I could easly understand her wanting to take some time of
        • by DrJimbo (594231) on Friday February 16, 2007 @03:10AM (#18035666)
          Technician said:

          PJ took a needed rest after some time was spent trying to serve her. The process of trying to serve her started before she took leave.
          I realize this is what Daniel Lyons reported. But he has spread SCO lies and FUD in the past so I don't consider him a reliable source. I certainly don't consider anyone from SCO as a reliable source either.

          Do you have any independent evidence to back up Lyons' claim?

          Technician said:

          If she was tipped off that someone was stalking her (trying to serve her), I could easly understand her wanting to take some time off for her health.
          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.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by tiny69 (34486)
        There is also another possibility. SCO could be trying to bait Judge Kimball into making a comment or statement about Groklaw that SCO can then use to claim he's biased. SCO would do almost anything to get the cases thrown out at this point. Why else would they make such a claim in the case that IBM is not a party to? Delay is the obvious reason. But my guess is they are fishing for more.
  • Damn him (Score:5, Funny)

    by DoofusOfDeath (636671) on Thursday February 15, 2007 @09:46PM (#18033592)
    Doesn't Stephen J. Vaughan-Nichols know that the first rule of Pamela Jones is, "DON'T TALK ABOUT PAMELA JONES"???
  • by Anonymous Coward
    Sucks to be SC0...

  • but who is he? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by antoinjapan (450229)
    I heard tell Stephen J. Vaughan-Nichols was a front for the front for IBM, so we are back where we started.
  • by Dracos (107777) on Thursday February 15, 2007 @09:47PM (#18033600)

    Starting a rumor that Stephen J. Vaughan-Nichols does not exist, and issuing a subpoena for him also.

  • It's obvious: IBM is a front for Pamela Jones!

  • by kwiqsilver (585008) on Thursday February 15, 2007 @09:50PM (#18033634)
    He's probably just a front for Novell. ;)

    What did SCO ever do to deserve this kind of treatment? Oh, yeah...that...
  • credability (Score:4, Insightful)

    by timmarhy (659436) on Thursday February 15, 2007 @09:56PM (#18033694)
    i'm guessing this whole stunt is meant to try sway public opinion so heavily influenced by groklaw, back into sco's favour. it's a really desperate attempt since it's so obviously false and easily proven so. besides i can't see how pj could possibly prove useful in any of sco's claims against IBM. my guess is it's a stall tactic and it'll backfire and have the judge angry about wasting his time.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Sj0 (472011)
      SCO has shat on the legal system, and there's no turning back. There's no stopping that SCO is pretty much dead when the music stops, since they'll have to face up to the criminal acts the company has perpetrated as well as penalties for the frivolous lawsuits. It's in their best interest to draw it out as much as possible, because this is their last dance.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 15, 2007 @09:58PM (#18033710)
    Back when the "Dallas" television series was made, the Internet didn't exist (or was known by a select few), so Darl has no guidelines as to "what JR would have done in this situation."
  • To be fair... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by seebs (15766)
    This isn't exactly convincing evidence that she exists, let alone that she's not a paid shill.

    Now, does either of the complaints seem plausible? No. But this isn't proof against them; it's just some guy claiming she exists, and not at all really giving us a basis for rejecting the theory that she's a paid shill.

    On the other hand, since there was never any reason to believe she was a paid shill, that hardly matters... But I don't see any reason for SCO to change their stance based on this.
    • by DrJimbo (594231)
      Fair??? A reputable and well-known journalist said:

      Yes, Pamela Jones is a real person. I've met her several times, and I've often "talked" with her on email and IM. I consider her a friend.

      To which seebs responded:

      This isn't exactly convincing evidence that she exists, let alone that she's not a paid shill.

      IMO, a reputable eye-witness who says they have met someone and consider them to be a friend is convincing evidence that that someone exists. Furthermore, since Vaughan-Nichols and PJ have linked to

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by dbIII (701233)
      We are being trolled by SCO and there really is nothing she could tell the court that is relevant at all since she is reporting on information that has already come before the court. They just want to put her through some sort of Amityville horror to waste court time and generally be nasty. This is SCO money after all and not Darl's money.
  • by mi (197448) <slashdot-2012@virtual-estates.net> on Thursday February 15, 2007 @10:09PM (#18033796) Homepage

    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)?

    • by QuantumG (50515) *
      Yes, because as fucked as it may be, the legal system doesn't work on the logic of argument.. it works on what is "generally held to be true" in the community. So it is succeptible to paid comment.
    • by mungtor (306258) on Thursday February 15, 2007 @10:52PM (#18034134)
      Of course being paid by IBM or associated with IBM doesn't change the validity or logic of any of her arguments.

      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.
      • 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.

        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.

    • by strider44 (650833)
      If she's being paid by IBM to do that then I want to hire her. *No one* normal is that thorough just because they're being paid.
      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by inode_buddha (576844)
        "*No one* normal is that thorough just because they're being paid."

        Ever have a mother-in-law?

  • Please!... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Kunta Kinte (323399) on Thursday February 15, 2007 @10:11PM (#18033810) Journal

    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!

  • by AirLace (86148) on Thursday February 15, 2007 @10:19PM (#18033876)

    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.
    • by grolschie (610666)

      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.

      How many dudes do you know that go by the name "Pamela"? :-)

  • by Dystopian Rebel (714995) * on Thursday February 15, 2007 @10:24PM (#18033908) Journal
    For whom is SCO a front?
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Micro$oft , of course!!!!!
  • by wardk (3037) on Thursday February 15, 2007 @10:29PM (#18033964) Journal
    for his bunghole.

    Just a rumor I read on slashdot
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 15, 2007 @10:36PM (#18034032)
    SCO To File Motion for Mistrial

    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.
  • by pembo13 (770295)
    So SCOs case has degraded to checking the existence of reporters?
  • by ion_ (176174)

    we now have Stephen J. Vaughan-Nichols writing to say 'Yes, there is a PJ.'

    But who can prove there is a Stephen J. Vaughan-Nichols?

  • Yes, proof! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Infonaut (96956) <infonaut@gmail.com> on Thursday February 15, 2007 @11:08PM (#18034250) Homepage Journal

    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.

  • by khallow (566160) on Friday February 16, 2007 @12:05AM (#18034626)

    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.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    Microsoft is using SCO to find out information on the person who founded and runs GrokLaw. Once Microsoft has gotten this information via SCO, they will likely contract a team to poison her. It could already be happening, hence the health issues. If the health issues take a turn for the worse, no one will be the wiser. But one more roadblock to Microsoft crushing the world will be removed.

    One needs to remember that SCO is bought and paid for by Microsoft and Microsoft controlled financial interests. The SCO
  • Hopefully, this statement will be enough to put those SCO-induced conspiracy theories to rest

    Er unlikely. Let's face it when has things like this stopepd SCO in the past...

    Jaj
  • Sad (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    It's sad. SCO are drowning. Darl is trying to take his nemesis PJ with them: she's old, tired and not well, let's put her through the legal (and thus financial) wringer before we go bankrupt. SCO get Lyons at Forbes to write another trash story (I think we can all guess who the "person close to the matter, who spoke on condition of anonymity" is -- hint, Stowell has resigned). Vaughan-Nichols is outraged at the sly phrasing of the failed subpoena service (many legal documents to individuals don't get serv

  • Was he born or was he invented?
  • ...probably not to PJ herself, obviously, but in terms of the material facts on the Groklaw website.

    Every substantive article on Groklaw has had extensive reference to the original court sources (Pacer, etc.). The facts are a matter of public record, and can be checked. And are checked by the members of the Groklaw community.

    This reminds me of the conversation in Dark Star, where Doolittle is trying to convince Bomb Number 20 not to explode by using solipsist reasoning:

    Doolittle: ...all you remember is

  • Since PJ hasn't been a party in any SCO lawsuit, other than commenting on them, her only role could be that of an expert witness.

    Even if PJ is a front for IBM, it is unlikely PJ has information that SCO isn't be able to obtain through IBM. And if PJ is a front for IBM then why would SCO expect PJ to disclose any information that IBM didn't already do.

    The only rational purpose for this action is the find out if PJ exists; PJ should be able to do that without actually having to show her face in public. Have s

Vax Vobiscum

Working...