![The Courts The Courts](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/court_64.png)
![Government Government](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/government_64.png)
![Caldera Caldera](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topiccaldera.gif)
![IBM IBM](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/ibm_64.png)
![Operating Systems Operating Systems](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/os_64.png)
![Software Software](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/software_64.png)
![Unix Unix](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/unix_64.png)
![News News](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/news_64.png)
![Your Rights Online Your Rights Online](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/yro_64.png)
Groklaw Refutes LinuxWorld Story About AIX Sources 249
rimberg writes "Maureen O'Gara printed a story about what allegedly was said in the last court hearing between IBM and SCO. Groklaw had eyewitnesses at the hearing. None of them reports seeing Ms. O'Gara there. Furthermore, none of them heard any of what she 'reports' about IBM supposedly claiming not to be able to find code. Let me repeat that. IBM never said anything like that, according to groklaw eyewitnesses."
It's SCO revisionist history (Score:5, Funny)
Re:It's SCO revisionist history (Score:5, Funny)
Re:It's SCO revisionist history (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.sys-con.com/author/?id=2390
Maureen O'gara has a wife??? (Score:5, Interesting)
I guess we could add #4, that she's really a transgendered "he", but I'd say you could swallow that inside of #1.
Re:How Maureen Got Her Wife to Run Linux (Score:3, Funny)
"My wife runs Windows 98 on her little 300mhz computer and it basically does what she needs - some photo editing, writing of documents, spreadsheets, e-mail, and Web surfing."
Um...Maureen's Wife?! Wow ok cool. Maybe Maureen is not a real person. Maybe she's like agony aunt or whatever. Maybe Maureen is just the name that they put on articles when they're so bad that no author would want to have their name associated with the article. :
Speaking of revisionist... (Score:4, Informative)
As an aside, though, that sure looks like a direct quote of the article in the story above. I wish submitter had at least put it in quotes... *sigh*
Jeff Merkey's behind this. (Score:5, Informative)
Like he's been known to do before, he spreads several versions of the "truth", often completely at odds with one another depending on which situation he's in at the moment. Having had to deal with him in the past, I can only say: He's going to get worse, and quickly. Never was a repository of 'just the fact ma'am' needed.
The plan? to push management towards prosco.net as it will appear one HELL of a sane place compared to OSS news sites that insist on following Merkey's manipulations.
I'm not so sure... (Score:5, Interesting)
Anyhow, if you read this Groklaw story [groklaw.net], you'll see that there may be a SCO lawyer connection here. That might be bad, because when they talked to O'Gara, they sure went on a lot about the privilege log and such concerning that privileged document SCO tried to read into the public record (which is *bad*). In other words, it *really* looks like SCO is leaking things it ought not to the media. Now, I can't prove any of that, but I would say that it's certainly beyond the appearance of impropriety to even discuss that with the media.
As for Merkey, here, I doubt he was behind the O'Gara stories here--I suspect O'Gara and a source close to SCO were. Expect IBM to be on the ball here and to start seeing just *what* all SCO has told the media. Now then, you're probably right about him coming up with more wild stories (buying Linux for $50,000 and putting it under a BSD license to "save" it... after he removes all the "SCO-owned" bits).
In other words, we can expect a LOT of crazy stuff before this story is over
Re:I'm not so sure... (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, that would suck.
Sources ? (Score:4, Interesting)
Now, where did the rumor that IBM said it couldn't find the sources come from ?
Re:Sources ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sources ? (Score:2)
Re:Sources ? (Score:5, Funny)
Who needs sources, when you've biased reporting and scurrilous innuendo?
Milo Bloom: Senator? This is Milo Bloom at the Beacon. Will you confirm that you sunk Jimmy Hoffa in your backyard pond?
Senator Bedfellow: What? Of course not!
Milo: Fine. I'll go with "Sen. Bedfellow denies that pond is where he sunk Hoffa."
Bedfellow: That's not true!
Milo: Okay. "Bedfellow did sink Hoffa in pond".
Bedfellow: I don't know where Hoffa is!!
Milo: "'I lost the body' says Bedfellow."
Re:Sources ? (Score:4, Informative)
RJ
Are you truly surprised? (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you truly surprised that it would still apply?
This SCO story isn't just one instance of bogus journalism - it's a hypotypical example of the weaknesses of the journalistic profession as a whole (although I hesitate to lump that person in with the real professionals). This sort of thing isn't something that we're ever going to "get over", because it isn't just a "sign of the times". It's an endemic condition.
There's always going to be a difference between conscientious professionals and sloppy hacks. In any profession, not just journalism.
Caveat lector.
Re:Are you truly surprised? (Score:2)
We understand it can motivate people into great things. Sometimes we forget the power of money, and forget to check where one's money is from.
Usually the source of the revenue is who the person receiving it serves.
Re:Sources ? (Score:3, Informative)
Ask and ye shall receive [groklaw.net]
looks and trustworthyness (Score:3, Funny)
On the other hand, it's impossible to find out how PJ looks like. Or for that matter why she doesn't use dots in her initial. How could we believe her!!
pwn3d! (Score:5, Insightful)
Let LinuxWorld know [linuxworld.com] what you think of the journalistic integrity of their writer.
Make it polite, short, and to the point.
Re:pwn3d! (Score:3, Interesting)
Fed up with crap articles like this?
Let the management know: lwmeditors@sys-con.com
Way to get mileage out of tis bizarre mistake...
Re:pwn3d! (Score:2, Interesting)
Its currently showing:
I call Shenanigans! (read more and respond... )
On the LinuxWorld front page, and on the page you displayed.
I bet the feedback display system works REALLY well for decent stories, but I think its backfiring here - or is it ALL done just for the page impressions....
Their sites ARE overloaded with ads.
My letter (Score:5, Interesting)
I was very disappointed with the article "IBM Tells SCO Court It Can't Find AIX-on-Power Code" (http://www.linuxworld.com/story/46800_p.htm) by Maureen O'Gara. I was offended by the demeaning tone of the article which shamelessly mixed personal opinion with reported fact. However, it has come to my attention that the article may not even have fact in it - another reputable news site, Groklaw, apparently had several people on hand at that particular hearing and not only reported that nothing Ms. O'Gara claims to have happend did, but also that Ms. O'Gara was never there. The full article is available here (http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2004102
I hope you investigate this matter to discover if Groklaw's claims are true. This is a serious breach of journalistic integrity that should not be ignored if LinuxWorld expects itself to be seen as a source of reliable news.
Thanks,
<me>
Target the sponsors (Score:3, Insightful)
If you write to LinuxWorld, that letter confirms that they have readership and ad views, which is a good thing, and encourages that behavior.
If you write to the sponsors and question their integrity for sponsoring such an article, THEY will contact LinuxWorld, and that will threaten LinuxWorld's income, which LinuxWorld will see as a bad thing. Hopefully this would discourage the behavior that you want discouraged.
Maureen has spammed me (over and over) (Score:5, Informative)
Good idea. However, since sys-con (the company behind this) has supported Maureen's spamming operation, I can't say I think they all that much in the way of "integrity". Complaining to them about anything has been a waste of time for me.
Allow me to explain. About two years ago I started getting "newsletters" from Maureen. To my knowledge, I never signed up for them or gave sys-con my primary email address. These were sent using a mailer by Lyris (according to their site "Lyris develops opt-in email marketing software"... oh, great), and were as spammy as can be. 10K to 20K of HTML marketing. Here's a partial sample:
To: "linuxgram"
...
From: "Linux Business Week"
Maureen O'Gara's LinuxGram
Maureen is single-handedly the reason why most companies in the software have abandoned having press conferences !
Linuxgram is published weekly by G2 Computer Intelligence Inc.
Send press releases to: news@g2news.com
Subscription price per year: $195/?140 individual reader.
Maureen O'Gara's LinuxGram Breaking News
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-linuxgram-2307683E@mailbox.sys-con.com
I will assure you that, for me, sending the blank unsubscription email was about as effective as pissing in the wind. I complained to every address I could think of @sys-con.com but the garbage continued to arrive. I finally had to resort to adding this block to sendmail:
207.178.67.103 ERROR:"550 known spammers (sys-con) blocked by SPOO database"
Suffice to say that I've (whenever possible) avoided doing business with sys-con ever since, and have lost most of the respect I might have had for them. So now they're spreading lies about the SCO case? Big surprise. Maybe there was some cash in it for them.
Re:pwn3d! (Score:4, Insightful)
or just stop making strawman arguments.
Re:pwn3d! (Score:5, Insightful)
I've often found her editorial commentary overwrought and hyperbolic, but her information is excellent and her legal analysis is spot on.
Bias does not cancel out integrity. Lies and misrepresentation of the facts does cancel it out. Therefore PJ had integrity and Mo O'Gara does not.
Re:pwn3d! (Score:3, Interesting)
I avoid reading that site for that very reason - she may be spot on and an excellent analyst but her fangirl presentation style damages her credibility.
Good point (Score:5, Interesting)
I have not provided a link deliberately. If you wish to read her article, you can find it, I'm sure by a Google search or off of Slashdot, since they made what I consider the unfortunate editorial decision to give the story more widespread readership than it otherwise would have received.
Re:Good point (Score:5, Insightful)
> widespread readership than it otherwise would have received."
If you take it that slashdot is a place that performs editorial checks on submissions then yes, but I don't think it's designed to be that. It's a link dump with a place for us to comment.
Nobody comes here for just the stories, it's the comments on those that are important, and as part of the self correcting nature of an unedited site, you get submissions like the one all the comments you're now reading are a response to.
In other words, the O'Gara article came out, and slashdot linked to it. Then the groklaw correction came out, and slashdot linked to it too.
Re:Good point (Score:2, Insightful)
But really, come on! This one was just stupid. Slashdot do have the editorial as well, and some bloody common sense has to be used! Just take this exert:
Well, during the Third Amended Complaint discussion, SCO's lawyer held up a piece of paper - that was duplicated on a projection screen that only the magistrate judge, Brooke Wells, could see - that listed al
Re:Good point (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, in my humble opinion, that's the real beauty. You not only get to make up your own mind. You get to read what others think about a statement, an assertion or a broader concept and make up your mind based on that.
It's a two-way approach, if you will. Unlike a newspaper, not a single entity decides if a story is "true" (if there even is such a thing). Sure, the editors decide if it's newsworthy, ie. if it gets approved and if it makes the frontpage. But the determination if what the story is about is non-sense or not is left to the reader.
And since Slashdot has such a wide-ranging readership, there are usually plenty of people to point out mistakes, misconceptions and straight-out lies and add insight to a story. That's actually why I keep coming here - because I'm interested in other people's views. I usually already have an opinion before I read the first comments (I actually do the articles, at least most of the time). But there's always a comment that makes me go "hmm, I never looked at it like that".
That's what's so cool about having a global readership - diversity and perspective.
Re:Good point (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Good point (Score:2)
Re:Good point (Score:3, Interesting)
But you could also argue that since slashdot has become such a major player in internet news, that it should think about playing to higher journalistic standards. Kind of like how the news media is pressing Jon Stewart to ask more "hard-hitting" questions in his interviews [nytimes.com] after his cnn/crossfire comments.
Re:Good point (Score:3, Informative)
One part of my job is providing technical support to a (real world) newsroom. In the past four years I struggle to remember a single occasion they followed up on, or drew as a source, a story from Slashdot. Most don't know what Slashdot is. Stories from Fark on the other hand appear daily for filler.
Slashdot is still first and foremost an online forum focusing mainly on computer technology. The 'editors' don't
Re:Good point (Score:2)
Close, but there is the fact that the "editors" do pick and choose which submissions to accept or refuse. The selection process seems to be an unashamedly subjective question of whether it looked interesting to the editor-on-duty at the time. Thus, it's not just a link dump, and it does engage in a certain kind of rudimentary editor-work; it's just that "editor" is to "Slashdot" is as "artist" is to "stick-figure".
I think I'll make that my new sig.
Re:Good point (Score:2)
Maybe it's just me, but it feels more like script editing than news editing. The idea seems to be to provoke controversy, to provoke a lot of good commentary about the subject of the hour. Within a medium of links to old news Slashdot seems to have a degree of succes
Re:Good point (Score:2)
Read Section 2) Editorial Independence [slashdot.org] of this old article.
Re:Good point (Score:3, Insightful)
No. If that were the case the whole bit could be automated. It's not.
Editors make decisions about what gets posted. They just happen to be very bad at it. But there is an editorial process, of sorts.
On the contrary, I'm sure there are
Re:Good point (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember all the attention heaped on Rob Enderle by Slashdot? He brags about it. He thrives on it. Will it ultimately be good for his career? I don't know, but I prefer to take the "don't feed the trolls" approach.
PJ (sure, she's a bit strange sometimes, but she seems like a smart woman) is right that the best way to punish people for writing this kind of fiction is to ignore it, not to give it maximal Slashvertizing.
Re:Good point (Score:5, Interesting)
Google ran a title from
Now a link in the very same
However, groklaw v slashdot readship... so while I think this story is a bit redundant in news terms, it does go some way to patch up the and clearly show linuxworld.com to be a bunch of twerps.
I say each sotry categorically states its news source(s) linking to a modded style news source rating (which moves up and down etc)
Then msn.com/msnbc.com can royally go and fsck themselves in -1 universe.
The story google picked up on was the Kodak / Sun claim case. I think google shouldn't link Slashdot stories - as they are not news sources, but commentary on news sources.
Re:Good point (Score:3, Insightful)
Sooner or later,
Re:Good point (Score:3, Insightful)
We've see this reaction before from a
good reason for not providing links. (Score:3, Insightful)
First is that the judge sealed the hearing transcript. Probably because one of the SCO lawyers tried to read sealed material into the record. Sealed material is not for the public eye. Helping to spread it could even be an offence, but IANAL.
Second, links to stories that are debunked on Groklaw have a tendency to disappear, so the links could very well be dead soon.
Groklaw is dedicated to accurate reporting. Providing links to bogus articles
Re:Good point (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you still are. PJ was not refering to /. linking to her site, she was refering to /. linking to the Linuxworld article thus boosting it's readership which she was not going to oblige.
Somewhere in the Groklaw archives is a report on readership stat's for O'Gara. Her page hits are usually abissmally low. The only time they seem to hit the 10's of thousands are when /. links to them. So the theory that /. is helping to perpetual journalistic rot like this has some merit.
OTOH, if /. is going to post about a story, I think they are under some obligation to link to it. In this particular case, Groklaw was specifically mentioned in a rather derogatory manner, so for it to not link back is fair because Groklaw has every right to defend itself against false and malicious charges without driving up the advertising dollars of those leveling the charges.
Is your head safer now?
Re:Good point (Score:3, Insightful)
Slashdot does not claim to conduct primary journalism, it merely centralises interesting things that others have said. Which is fine by me.
I think it was deserving. Here's why: (Score:5, Insightful)
Here is what I think Slashdot did wrong yesterday when it first reported the O'Gara story. Remember, /. has great control over how a story is reported. It is NOT just putting up a link and that's it. A headline is created by /., and the editor posting the story has the ability to add editorial comments to what the submitter added. Finally, they usually get many simultaneous submissions, which means the one submission they picked is the one they think has the most interesting wording or the best links or something they feel makes it most post-worthy. With that in mind, let's see how /. handled this story yesterday:
The submission came from Ghostx13, and here is what he or she wrote that caught /.'s eye: "A story over at Linuxworld states that IBM has been less than forthcoming with its bits and pieces of source code SCO is demanding. SCO is alleging in its 3rd Amended Complaint that 'IBM put SCO-owned SVR4 code in System 3-based AIX for its proprietary Power chip architecture.' The problem? IBM 'can't find' that source code. Does IBM have something to hide?"
OK, is this slanted? Yes. The loaded question at the end, the complete acceptance of the underlying Linuxworld story facts, all leads an air of acceptance of these facts. 'Does IBM have something to hide?" That's a laughable question given what the facts turned out to be, but it's a question that, left unchallenged, serves the wishes of SCO very well. That is precisely the sort of uneasy feeling they want us to have about IBM.
Did CowboyNeal add any editorial comments to this? No, he did not. On the one hand, that's good because he didn't choose to add any slanted thoughts to the already slanted submission. On the other hand, he didn't issue any caution about the submission as /. sometimes does. That, in itself, is an editorial decision that amounts to him implying that the submission stands on its own. Because they chose that submission over any of the others, it implies they were satisfied with it as it was.
Now here is the title that /. added to the story: "IBM Tells SCO Court It Can't Find AIX-on-Power Code." Well, that is no longer true, is it, even if you read the O'Gara story at face value. So the headline refers to past circumstances that the actual submission contradicts. Again, an editorial slant that makes IBM look worse than the facts show.
Finally, go back and look at the comments to that story and see how many people contradict the idea of the story, point out the true facts, etc. So yeah, I do think /. made an "unfortunate editorial decision" to the story. They didn't just give a link, but they made a series of editorial decisions that gave extra weight to that link, weight it did not deserve. Did CowboyNeal do this out of ignorance of the facts? Probably. He may not have had the time to research this. Was it deliberate, to stir up the readership and get lots of angry comments? I have no idea. But it wasn't a good editorial decision, IMO.
Re:Good point (Score:2, Interesting)
By whining that /. posted a unfavorable story, groklaw is establishing itself as exactly the fan stie other accuse it of being. There was likely
I'm sure (Score:5, Funny)
O'Gara has an anti-Linix/anti-Open Source history (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:O'Gara has an anti-Linix/anti-Open Source histo (Score:5, Insightful)
Giving her articles front page placement on Slashdot is exactly what she intends. It get tens of thousands of ad impressions, her bosses think she's writing controversial, hard hitting opinion pieces, and everybody is happy except a bunch of fuming Slashdotters. This is EXACTLY like Rob Enderle - these people desperately want attention, and they don't care if it's negative.
Please dear Slashdot editors, once it's been established that a particular writer is trolling for page views (i.e. they brag about how hated their articles are and exerpt Slashdot hate mail their publication has received) STOP giving them the front page placement they want, or you'll just encourage more of the same.
Re:O'Gara has an anti-Linix/anti-Open Source histo (Score:3, Insightful)
And if links to their stories are posted, at least remind us that Enderle and O'Gara went to the John Dvorak school of Journalism. where they majored in page hit whoring.
Maureen O'Gara herself refutes the article (Score:2, Interesting)
( http://www.linuxworld.com/story/46800_f.htm [linuxworld.com])
"Maureen O'Gara commented on 23 October 2004:
* I'm really sorry everyone. I want you all to know that this was really intended as a satire piece, but the editors didn't realise and have published it as fact.
It was really hard to keep a straight face while writing it, and I was obviously hoping for the same reaction from my readers.
Oh, the ads here are satire too. Have you read
Re:Maureen O'Gara herself refutes the article (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Maureen O'Gara herself refutes the article (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Maureen O'Gara herself refutes the article (Score:2)
If that really were the author posting that comment, she's either an idiot or LinuxWorld are an untrustworthy news source.
So no, it's not her.
Re:Maureen O'Gara herself refutes the article (Score:2)
Re:Maureen O'Gara herself refutes the article (Score:2)
A published retraction or explanation would have some credibility. If they do no do so voluntarily, once IBM's lawyers contact Linuxworld, we'll be seeing that.
Say "Aye", those who... (Score:4, Insightful)
*crickets chirp*
Right.
Re:Say "Aye", those who... (Score:2)
Re:Maureen O'Gara herself refutes the article (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure, that apology could have been written by the actual Ms. O'Gara, but I wouldn't bet any money on it.
Re:Maureen O'Gara herself refutes the article (Score:5, Funny)
Har har har.
Further up in the comments:
William Gates commented on 23 October 2004:
Thanks for the Pro-SCO article Maureen. I'll be sending you another $20,000 soon. Keep up the good work.
Darl McBride commented on 23 October 2004:
Everything Maureen has said is exactly true. I can't believe that we haven't used this in our case! Keep up the good work! We could really use some advice.
My retraction (Score:2)
I formally retract that statement. As bad as Didio (and Enderle) are, Ms. O'Gara has sunk to a level beneath them. It looks like she is willing to tell outright lies without any effort to check facts. Rather than ignoring her stories, I will now read them so that I may keep up with the statements that IBM is likely to use in a lawsuit against her and her and anyone who prints her
O'Gara - Mouthpiece for SCOX Price Manipulation (Score:2)
Standard SCO tactic - carefully timed press release via shill to manipulate the stock.
SCO vermin are either trying to make a quick buck through this, or they are trying to prevent a freefall of the stock once it slips below the $3/share mark.
Over the past weeks I've always seen SCOX rebound in the last hour of trading every day I've checked. Far more often than other stocks I've followed, to the point of curiousness. Who on earth would be in a rush to buy SCOX at the end of the day? Regularly? And why? Hm
waffling (Score:3, Funny)
Linux owns Linux trademark, yes? (Score:4, Interesting)
Doesn't Linus _own_ the Linux trademark now? This being the case, is there not
some form of direct action he could take, forcing anti-Linux websites from using
the word "Linux" in their name?
Re:Linux owns Linux trademark, yes? (Score:2)
Re:Linux owns Linux trademark, yes? (Score:2)
Re:Linux owns Linux trademark, yes? (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, that's kind of happening. Lindows had to change names due to trademark suits from Microsoft, and some people I know had their MSN Messenger fan (WTF?) sites shut down by Microsoft (WTF?) for trademark infringement.
As for shutting down anti-Microsoft sites, I guess they could do that if the site uses some trademarked word, or something similar (like Micro$oft) in t
Re:Linux owns Linux trademark, yes? (Score:3, Insightful)
This is what I am referring to. We're not talking about taking down anti-Linux websites. Obviously they can use the word "Linux" in an article or descriptive means all they desire.
However, when a website has "linuxblahblah.com" as its name, it is definitely a trademark issue. The same for a company name.
I also think the same thing applies t
Re:Linux owns Linux trademark, yes? (Score:3, Interesting)
Nothing. It does exist. So does "LinuxWorld". Both are sites that are frequently, to my eyes, less than favorable to Linux. In fact, they tend to be sufficiently slanted that I won't bother to read them any longer.
MS settled the suit they initiated (Score:5, Interesting)
MS paid them $20M to change names after it looked like they were going to lose the very dubious Windoes Trademark. MS sued and pretty much lost. [com.com]
Groklaw - I tip my hat to you (Score:2, Insightful)
Companies like SCO depend on the poor skills (or the dishonest collusion) of "journalists" so that they can continue their skullduggery.
Personally, I think SCO would do anything, even get a jornalist to lie for them, in the hope that they might just be bought out. SCO is a sinking ship full of desperate liars, but I think they're desperate to appe
From what I understand (Score:2)
I don't think so (Score:3, Informative)
Lousy Hearing (Score:2)
Letter I sent (Score:3, Insightful)
IBM code in SCO hands (Score:2)
Grain of salt (Score:2)
Maureen and SCO have a right to say whatever they want, even lies. They do however have to deal with consequences. This latest fiasco does illuminate some things about Mauree
LinuxWorld Controlled by Msft? Remember /. story? (Score:2)
He said that since linuxworld was taken over, it seems the entire purpose of linuxworld is advocate msft.
Who took over at linuxworld? Any msft connection?
IMO: not just a failure to do proper research (Score:2)
Yeah, I know, tinfoil hat and all. But, I've followed this scox-scam for a while now, and I've followed msft for even longer. There have been way more dirty tricks than I can even begin to remember.
Again, JMHO.
cryptgraphy (Score:2)
I smell... (Score:2)
Or am I being too optimistic?
delaying tactics (Score:4, Insightful)
Instead, let us consider her role in SCO's delaying tactics. Last month, she was kind of announcing that SCO would charge IBM for fraud:
http://www.linuxworld.com/story/46384.htm
And why? Because of a killer story unearthed from IBM e-mails SCO got during discovery. Well, if you have been following the SCO-IBM case from the beginning, you may recall that SCO charged IBM of fraud in the initial complaint of March 2003. They retracted the charge in the 2nd Amended Complaint of July 2003, which is the one currently valid. Just imagine, SCO would ask the judge for permission to revert to the initial fraud charge in a 3rd amendment. And they cannot simply amend the complaint, they need permission these days.
One month has elapsed since Maureen's Sept. 18 exercise, SCO is not murmuring any longer of fraud charges, nor is Maureen. What can they do to keep the FUD simmering and delay the case to the end of time? A 3rd Amendment would help. Maureen proclaims it is already in place (in other words, accepted by the judge after consultation with IBM) and under seal. This time the reason is non-licensed code included in AIX. Needless to say, the issue is another rotting carcass of zero importance. For details, please do a search on Groklaw.
At this point, let us refresh a few other details of the case. SCO succeeded in Summer 2003 pushing up the closure of discovery and the start of the hearings. But when Judge Kimball set November 2005 as new date for the hearings he also said very forcefully that there would be no further delays. However, a 3rd amendment would possibly make his position untenable both in respect of discovery and of hearings. If SCO gets a 3rd amendment, they will be able to request additional months for discovery and the case would skid to Spring 2006.
Parallel to the 3rd amendment dreams, SCO is also trying hard to disrupt operations of the magistrate court managing their discovery shenanigans. First they introduced papers at the very last minute before a discovery hearing so IBM could not respond. The magistrate judge postponed. They took a dislike to her and tried to get Judge Kimball to convene an emergency meeting to bypass her. He refused. In the discovery hearing on October 19, they read from confidential material and it takes two interventions by the judge to stop them. One week after the hearing, Maureen O'Gara helps spread confidential details plus blatant lies purporting to be confidential material. This is an attempt to trap the judge in formal procedural errors - from which the desired delays may hopefully follow.
Memo to los SCOjones: you will not get a 3rd amendment, not even if Maureen O'Gara and LinuxWorld present fresh fanciful reasons in November and December. The reality check is approaching, drop by drop. Next Spring one of the three pending Partial Summary Judgments requested by IBM will have been decided. It does not matter which one because that will be your end in any case.
"Presserat" (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not a government organisation, but rather a self control entity by the press.
The idea is, that the public or victim of a press campaign can file a complaint and they will determine if the general agreed upon press ethics where violated by that media and/or journalist.
Of course there are a lot of frivolous complaints around the lines "they shortened my letter to the editor" (which is perfectly fine as long the meaning is not distorted) or "this article hurt my feelings" (which a paper is not obliged to respect in the first place, you can stop reading it after all).
What is a clear violation is to publish gross accusations (Politico Suchnsuch embezzled the church bingo fund and then fucked a pig) without confronting the victim with such allegations prior to publishing. A practical example was a paper being reprimanded for fotoshoping water stains to a blood red color, to make the site of a terror attack more ghoulish.
Of course lying outright, possibly knowingly and heaven forbid! taking payola for such an outrage (alas I don't know if this was the case and would never accuse a fine member of the press of such an atrocity) is about as much violation of press ethics as humanly possible.
Finding are published and the idea is that the media in question is publicly hung up high and dry and shamed into humility.
It doesn't replace a libel court case, though but overall it seems to work pretty nicely.
Bad Journalism (Score:3, Insightful)
A simple statement of "As long as you continue to support the publication of (insert description here) such as in/at (insert example here) I will aviod the purchase of your products, and encourage my friends and workplace to do the same."
Re:Groklaw is NOT a reputable source (Score:5, Funny)
Hope that helps.
Re:Groklaw is NOT a reputable source (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Groklaw is NOT a reputable source (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Groklaw is NOT a reputable source (Score:5, Insightful)
> hides posts on a regular basis.
Logical fallacy. Response posts have nothing to do with the repository of information and editorials.
Please stop the FUD (Score:5, Insightful)
They always claim that Groklaw is not a reputable source, make certain claims about the site, like for example that it has a nazgul posting policy and never, ever back their claims up with anything.
Also note that these kind of posts are always posted by ACs. (Just like my post, I know, but I simply don't have an account).
These kind of posts are neither interesting, nor are they insightful, they are plain and simple FUD!
Re:Please stop the FUD (Score:5, Insightful)
Pamela Jones most certainly does remove posts she deems a) repulsive (goatse, etc), b) fake (attemts to register a username as Darl, etc) c) inflammatory (trolls, astroturfing, etc)
This is perfectly reasonable, as she maintains, and always HAS maintained, that groklaw is a blog.
The simple truth is that she can do what she likes, and you can take HER OPINION with whatever sized grain of salt you like.
Of course, she's also good at ferreting out documents, and she's gathered an excellent team who help her make things available to people with disabilities (transcribing non-OCR'ed pdf's, for example)
Now, since you seem to be under the impression that an opinion site shouldn't contain opinions, you might be surprised to learn that she infact does editorialise facts, with her own bias.
You can probably ignore all of it, and just use the legal documents link on her site however, and no-one's forcing you to read the comments on her site either.
ashridah
Re:Please stop the FUD (Score:2)
If you have compelling pro-SCO arguments, I would encourage you to log on to Slashdot and post them in one of the relevant stories here. Your posts won't be deleted. They will surely be corrected however.
Anonymous Coward is NOT a reputable source (Score:4, Insightful)
If you don't, we have to assume you're just posting innuendo on SCO's behalf.
Re:...whatever... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:...whatever... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Why can't we MOD whole stories? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Why can't we MOD whole stories? (Score:2)
Re:Why can't we MOD whole stories? (Score:2)
Now, they can "Bitchslap" (-1 to thread of conversation).
They have unlimited -1 powers.
None of their mod points show up in meta-mod. That would "assume" the're wrong.
They can lock out legitimate users who complain.
They can post inane drivel on the front page. April 1 is the worst...
Re:What is up with IDG allowing this? (Score:3, Interesting)
Look at some of the stuff she's written in the past [linuxbusinessweek.com]. It's clear that she and her editors are thriving on the advertising impressions that trolling gets. Slashdot is just encouraging them by giving them attention - they have no concept of negative press or feedback.
Several people have pointed out that Bruce Perens is on the SYS-CON Media "International Board of Advisors". Bruce, I don't know if this gives you t