Slashdot Log In
Groklaw No Front for IBM
Posted by
CowboyNeal
on Thu Feb 15, 2007 09:31 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This discussion has been archived.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: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:Pamela Jones is real! (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
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
Damn him (Score:5, 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
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!
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.
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: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