Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
The Courts Government Software News Linux

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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

SCO Vs. Groklaw

Comments Filter:
  • by MagikSlinger ( 259969 ) on Tuesday February 13, 2007 @11:19PM (#18007312) Homepage Journal
    Remember that fictional movie critic Sony created awhile back? Maybe Pamela eloped with him? :-)
  • Does it matter? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ZachPruckowski ( 918562 ) <> on Tuesday February 13, 2007 @11:21PM (#18007322)
    As far as I know, everything hosted on Groklaw has been a matter of public record, and the blog has been clear in its anti-SCO bias from the get-go. There's no gag order in place, is there? And there's no rule that says you need to be honest on the Internet. I mean, since the info is true, does it legally have any bearing if PJ is one of IBM's lawyers, a real person, or the Easter Bunny?

    Also, if Groklaw was run by IBM lawyers, why would it get involved in the Sony rootkit fiasco []? I mean, IBM wouldn't want to come out against Sony if they could avoid it (supplying the PS3 with parts as they are) and also, why have your lawyers handle stuff like that?
    • Delay (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Xenographic ( 557057 ) on Tuesday February 13, 2007 @11:37PM (#18007442) Journal
      It's yet another SCO delay tactic, in my estimation. I think everyone should know by now just how far they've drawn out this process. There was a mention on Pacer that said something about getting an extension of time to do more depositions.

      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... :]
      • Re:Delay (Score:5, Funny)

        by budgenator ( 254554 ) on Wednesday February 14, 2007 @08:20AM (#18010102) Journal
        The guys at SCOX act like new-money rich people, They buy something and pay a lot of money for it, and its better than what I'd be able to buy, but only a little bit better; and certainly not worth the price difference. Now guys like the SCOX guys have no self-esteem, and derive the sense of self-worth externally, and when they finally start to realize the Linux really is as good or almost as good as the Unix they overpayed for, then over course the Linux guys must have stolen it from Unix. Same with lawyes, the paralegal PJ is as good as SCOX's legal team, so to the SCOXers she's got to be an IBM lawyer.

        Maybe Daryl's problem started when he was in the seventh grade, and all the other boys teased him about having a small penis in the gym class shower, one to many wedgies can snap a mind you know. Maybe we should in the spirit of forgiveness let bygones be bygones and all chip in and buy some of those penis enlarging thingies I keep getting advertisements for in my Email and have them sent to the SCOX corporate gym! That way the SCOXers can pump up their self-esteem in a way that doesn't hurt the rest of society.
    • Re:Does it matter? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by iminplaya ( 723125 ) on Wednesday February 14, 2007 @12:02AM (#18007620) Journal
      Too many people are hung up on the messenger as opposed to the message. That's why the big stink over phoney bloggers. In fact look at the people who preach up and down about Jesus. It's all about the man, and little if any about his message. I've noticed the same thing with some people right here on slashdot with those who won't listen the ACs no matter what was posted. If they wish to remain ignorant, it's their choice, and their loss, but it makes me have second thoughts as to whether they should allowed to vote in anything outside their local elections. I don't like the thought of people from Utah voting for politicians who believe they have a right to break into my computer in Peoria.
      • Re:Does it matter? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by _Sprocket_ ( 42527 ) on Wednesday February 14, 2007 @02:40AM (#18008592)

        Too many people are hung up on the messenger as opposed to the message.

        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: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by iminplaya ( 723125 )
          I suppose that could be true, but I usually take the words at their face value. That's why I don't care about fake blogs and stuff. The CEO of Exxon stating(if he were to do so) that we must cut back on petroleum usage is no less valid than when the head of Greenpeace says it. I would of course be suspicious of what alternative Exxon has to offer, but the statement still stands. Since I'm not a mind reader, I see the statement, not the intention, though I can differenciate a parable from a statement of fact
        • Re:Does it matter? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by hey! ( 33014 ) on Wednesday February 14, 2007 @08:14AM (#18010068) Homepage Journal
          There are two aspects to what somebody says: assertions of fact, and inferences.

          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.
    • by jours ( 663228 ) on Wednesday February 14, 2007 @12:07AM (#18007648)
      > And there's no rule that says you need to be honest on the Internet.

      And it's a good thing too..otherwise we wouldn't have anyone left writing article summaries for Slashdot.

    • by malsdavis ( 542216 ) on Wednesday February 14, 2007 @12:22AM (#18007740)
      "I mean, since the info is true, does it legally have any bearing if PJ is one of IBM's lawyers, a real person, or the Easter Bunny?"

      There certainly are legal consequences if PJ is infact the Easter Bunny. Massive consueqences indeed!

      For at the moment Easter Bunnies do not in fact have any legal rights in the USA or any other country. Many laws would need to be changed and the source of his/her easter eggs found and appropriately taxed!
      • by sconeu ( 64226 ) on Wednesday February 14, 2007 @12:53AM (#18007944) Homepage Journal
        It would also mean that PJ (along with Santa Claus) wrote the Linux Kernel.
      • by Stephen Samuel ( 106962 ) <samuel@b c g r e e n . com> on Wednesday February 14, 2007 @01:38AM (#18008246) Homepage Journal

        There certainly are legal consequences if PJ is infact the Easter Bunny. Massive consueqences indeed!
        First of all, the easter bunny would be charged with various computer crimes for leaving millions of easter eggs [] on (and under) people's computers. If any Easter Eggs are found on federal computers, then the dastardly wabbit could find itself facing more than a decade in the pen.

        But wait! It gets worse!

        The Easter bunny isn't a US Citizen.... In fact the Easter bunny is probably stateless... This means that if an easter egg causes problems with a US Military Computer, then the Easter Bunny could end up accused of being an illegal combatant. Can you imagine what that would do to the guys that have been in Guantanimo Bay since the start of the Afghanistan war? These guys are probably already worried about their sanity. If they see a CIA agent questioning a giant bunny with a magical basket on it's arm they're gonna be certain that they've completely lost their grip on reality.

        The result could be a mass epidemic of psychotic episodes within the prison.

        And, of course, he'll never tell them where Osama Bin Ladin is:

        Colonel: Any info from the rabbit?
        Captain: Nope. Won't say a thing, but he keeps trying to dig his way out of the cell.
        Colonel: Well, you better resolve the issues with him soon... You have no idea how many eggs I've sat on today.
    • by logicnazi ( 169418 ) <> on Wednesday February 14, 2007 @01:19AM (#18008132) Homepage
      I don't know whether it should have any legal effect but if true it would certainly cause credibility problems for IBM with many people, perhaps including the judge. Moreover, we don't know all of what has been stated in depositions. If IBM or other companies have made claims incompatible with the facts behind groklaw that could be problematic.

      Additionally there are ethical guidelines with real force that prohibit attorneys from using lies in the course of their representation. Remember in one state it even went so far as to create problems for prosecutors who wanted to give advice to undercover officers. Since she appears to have made claims that would be lies if she was an IBM lawyer this might be problematic for her and any lawyers who participated in the scheme.

      In order to play devil's advocate for a moment wouldn't blogging about the sony rootkit and other issues provide important cover for really being an IBM lawyer? If IBM was going engage in such deceitful tactics they would be betting much on the truth not being discovered so criticizing sony wouldn't be problematic. Besides, do you really think the reason people do or don't buy the PS3 has much to do with Sony's rootkit fiasco?


      However, having said this these very considerations make it extremely unlikely this blog is written by IBM lawyers as such. For starters it would be idiotic to put someone who was actually involved in trying the case in such a position where gag orders, conflicts of interest and rules about not suborning perjury might become incompatible with keeping the secret. Secondly, the very fact that it might run afoul of these ethics guidelines makes it very unlikely that the IBM attorneys would be doing it.

      A more interesting question is whether PJ receives any financial remuneration from IBM. It is a far more plausible story that PJ is in fact a lawyer/para-legal who genuinely has many of these views but was paid by IBM so they could devote more time to them. In this case they would not be acting as legal consul so most of the ethics rules I've mentioned would not apply and this would be a much better explanation of the choices of subjects than a blog run by a corporate committee.

      In this case, absent some PR effects of depositions to the contrary by IBM I'm unsure if there would be any legal repercussions. But who can say until we know what SCO is trying to subpoena her for.

    • Re:Does it matter? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Dtyst ( 790737 ) on Wednesday February 14, 2007 @02:40AM (#18008586)
      Pamela has also written negative articles about patents, something IBM surely wouldn't want if they could control her. Didn't Pamela for some time also work as a manager(?) for open source company for a while. Surely a team of laywers couldn't fake that do that. I'm pretty sure that Pamlea exsists, if she has had any help from IBM laywers I'm sure it's very hard to prove in court. And why would it even matter?
    • Re:Does it matter? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Rimbo ( 139781 ) <rimbosity@sbc g l o b a l . n et> on Wednesday February 14, 2007 @02:59AM (#18008690) Homepage Journal
      The answer to your question is in TFA:

      Jones also has criticized some journalists who cover the lawsuits, including this reporter, accusing them of being biased in favor of SCO.

      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.)
    • by HangingChad ( 677530 ) on Wednesday February 14, 2007 @08:23AM (#18010116) Homepage

      I mean, since the info is true, does it legally have any bearing if PJ is one of IBM's lawyers, a real person, or the Easter Bunny?

      It matters. []

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 13, 2007 @11:21PM (#18007326)
    That there are no real females on the internet. I think SCO may have something here.
  • I'd be stoked (Score:5, Interesting)

    by WasterDave ( 20047 ) <(moc.pekdez) (ta) (pevad)> on Tuesday February 13, 2007 @11:21PM (#18007330)
    I'll be absolutely stoked if IBM made the whole thing up. Best ... astrotuf ... ever!!

    But somehow I don't think so. Somehow I think she's just kinda knackered.

    • by IBM Corp Lawyer ( 1063976 ) on Wednesday February 14, 2007 @01:06AM (#18008048)
      IANAL, but I can vouch for the fact that she definitely exists.

      Posting anonymously for obvious reasons.
    • Coincidence? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by logicnazi ( 169418 )
      Or she doesn't want to be subpoenaed for various reasons.

      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 tan
      • To be Clear (Score:3, Interesting)

        by logicnazi ( 169418 )
        Yes, wikipedia lists her as author of several books and gives us her name as Pamela Jones but is curiously devoid of any actual identifying information or biographical information. Compare to the page on Tim O'Reilly where we learn where and when he was born and how he did in college despite a much shorter entry than the one on Pamela Jones.
  • So what? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ( 463190 ) * on Tuesday February 13, 2007 @11:22PM (#18007334) Homepage
    Why would SCO want to depose Jones? SCO officials declined to comment about the matter. But in the past, company officials have said that Jones and her blog, called "Groklaw," were acting as a front for IBM (nyse: IBM - news - people )--an assertion they may hope to prove in a legal setting. Sounds pretty far fetched, but so what even if she is? Is that even illegal?

    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:So what? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by thedarknite ( 1031380 ) on Tuesday February 13, 2007 @11:43PM (#18007498) Homepage
      Apparently, they want to be able to show in court that there is a direct relationship between herself and IBM. Although I don't see how that will help them at all.

      Also this little snippet doesn't make much sense either if SCO are claiming that PJ is an IBM shill.

      The SCO vs. IBM lawsuit won't go to trial until a related case, SCO vs. Novell (nasdaq: NOVL - news - people ), has been decided. That case, which is scheduled to be tried later this year, is the one for which SCO is attempting to take a deposition from Jones.
      • by Xenographic ( 557057 ) on Tuesday February 13, 2007 @11:58PM (#18007598) Journal
        I don't think it will help SCO at all. I think it's just a dirty trick they're using to punish PJ for speaking out against what they've been doing. But we all knew that, huh?

        I hope that when she feels better again, she finds some good way to respond to this deposition without giving SCO any opening to make all of her personal details public (like Maureen O'Gara [] once attempted to) and without opening herself up to any other form of harassment.

        And I don't blame her one bit for being sick. Just thinking about the crap they're pulling now is enough to make me sick. She has every right to feel like a psycho ex is stalking her :(
    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 13, 2007 @11:53PM (#18007566)
      It wouldn't surprise me in the least if they stepped it up before actually trying to serve her, knowing she couldn't be found if they did that.

      If you have any doubts as to SCO's character, this sums it up: id=12476453 []
    • Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by scoove ( 71173 ) on Tuesday February 13, 2007 @11:53PM (#18007568)
      I've participated on Groklaw since the beginning, and would suggest that SCO is very troubled if this is all its legal team is left to manifest on.

      It's comparable to Captain Queeg's determined investigation of the theft of ice cream in the classic Bogart film, The Caine Mutiny []. 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...
    • However, I will say that the timing and content of her blog post is totally consistent with someone trying not to be found
      Instead of giving credence to SCO's conspiracy theory, how about the one that presents itself at face value -- that she really is ill, and SCO wants to kick her while she's down?
  • This is silly (Score:5, Informative)

    by greg_barton ( 5551 ) * <> on Tuesday February 13, 2007 @11:22PM (#18007338) Homepage Journal
    See her wikipedia page. [] It lists her as author of several articles and co-author of a book. At some point she had to meet with editors or sign a contract, information about all of which is probably subject to subpoena. If SCO hasn't looked into this they're just spreading FUD. (The wikipedia article is the first listing when googling "Pamela Jones," for goodness sake: linky []
  • by Nimloth ( 704789 ) on Tuesday February 13, 2007 @11:22PM (#18007340)
    Says so in her Wikipedia entry []:

    "Others falsely accused her of being associated with IBM."
    Seems quite clear to me she's not associated with IBM... I guess SCO doesn't know about Wikipedia.
  • by AllParadox ( 979193 ) on Tuesday February 13, 2007 @11:23PM (#18007344)
    I, however, am a figment of my own imagination.
  • by karmaflux ( 148909 ) on Tuesday February 13, 2007 @11:23PM (#18007346)
    ...was convincing SCO she didn't exist.

    Seriously waiting for Darl McBride to drop his coffee mug and see the name of IBM's lead attorney printed on the bottom.
  • A slight to EFF? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Red Flayer ( 890720 ) on Tuesday February 13, 2007 @11:29PM (#18007392) Journal
    FTA (emphasis mine):

    Other companies have taken legal action against bloggers only to have those actions backfire. In January, Apple (nasdaq: AAPL - news - people ) was reportedly forced to pay $700,000 to cover the legal expenses of bloggers against whom it had tried to take legal action, thanks to the efforts of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a San Francisco group that defends bloggers.

    Oh, so that's what EFF does.

    Good thing Forbes cleared that up for me, I thought they do a lot more than that []. 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.
    • Re:A slight to EFF? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by LuYu ( 519260 ) on Wednesday February 14, 2007 @02:35AM (#18008562) Homepage Journal

      ...thanks to the efforts of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a San Francisco group that defends bloggers.

      That was also my first reaction when I read that. It is obviously an attempt to marginalize the EFF by making it look like a stupid hippie organization from SF that defends kooks on the Internet. I always thought the defense of Free Speech was everybody's responsibility, and the Constitution is not exactly new technology.

      This should come as no surprise as the reporter is Daniel Lyons [] (ugh... human resources... what a creep). PJ appears to have gotten after him in this Groklaw article [] (which points to this article []). And has mentioned him in several other articles [](no, I am not going to read and comment on all of them for this post -- do it yourself). He refers to PJ's criticism in today's posted article:

      Jones also has criticized some journalists who cover the lawsuits, including this reporter, accusing them of being biased in favor of SCO.

      As an interesting side note, the reference Groklaw and Forbes articles mention this odd little tidbit:

      Another beneficiary could be John Wall, chief executive of , a Redmond, Wash., company that last August struck a licensing arrangement with SCO.

      Does anybody else find it interesting that there is a Redmond, Washington based company named, of all things that invested in SCO at the beginning of the lawsuit? We all know that MS used Baystar as an investment front for the SCO litigation, but this makes it appear that MS had as many as three fronts set up to invest money in SCO right before the lawsuit (MS's purchase of a SCO license was the third).

      Considering Windows Vista is MS's new "killer" product which incorporates hardware DRM to defend MS from Linux, could "Vista" mean a broad plan to attack FOSS in general?

      I thought the devil had many names. Why is he using the same one more than once this time?

      • by abb3w ( 696381 ) on Wednesday February 14, 2007 @11:30AM (#18011950) Journal

        I thought the devil had many names. Why is he using the same one more than once this time?

        No imagination. The many names have all been given to him by mankind. Creativity is a manifestation of Creation, and therefore remains the province of God. The Devil lost any ability to create when he fell. All he can do now is mimic, steal and corrupt.

        Now, are we discussing Lucifer, or Bill Gates?

    • by Experiment 626 ( 698257 ) on Wednesday February 14, 2007 @11:20AM (#18011798)

      thanks to the efforts of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a San Francisco group that defends bloggers.

      What do you expect from Forbes, a New York newsletter that prints stock tips?

  • Delay #... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by pionzypher ( 886253 ) on Tuesday February 13, 2007 @11:35PM (#18007426)
    Delay tactic #34785 by SCO. No purpose besides attempting to cast more FUD on the issue. If they claim IBM is the PJ from Groklaw after she takes a break; allowing the courts to search for her for weeks/months... It's a good delay tactic.
      I sincerely hope SCO rots in hell and as for Mr. DM... A jail cell looks nice.
  • by wwrmn ( 42399 ) on Tuesday February 13, 2007 @11:37PM (#18007446)
    I envision the iced Coronas, discarded laptop, and legalese drawn lazily in the sand by a toe.

    Enjoy your rest!
  • by whackeroony ( 240663 ) on Tuesday February 13, 2007 @11:38PM (#18007452)
    Slashdot is as stupid for allowing his tripe to be posted here as Forbes is in employing him
    • MOD PARENT UP! (Score:5, Informative)

      by imroy ( 755 ) <> on Wednesday February 14, 2007 @12:45AM (#18007882) Homepage Journal

      Whoever modded this down is an idiot. The fact is, Daniel Lyons at Forbes has a long history of attacking Groklaw and Pamela Jones. I believe he even once published the address from a 'whois' lookup on, believing that it was Pamela's address. Luckily she'd used a P.O box (or something) in a different state to register the domain. But that gives you indication of the ad hominim attacks that SCO and its supporters indulge in.

      Just do a Google search. Sadly, many of these articles have been linked from here on Slashdot, giving Forbes and Daniel the page hits they desire.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by catman ( 1412 )
        Actually, the tone of TFA is quite surprising, given DLs previous history of sneering diatribes. This one could actually be described as journalism, the EFF blunder just a part of a journalist's SOP. Maybe he has learned a little on the job.

        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?

  • Statistical analysis (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Goonie ( 8651 ) * <> on Tuesday February 13, 2007 @11:39PM (#18007456) Homepage
    There's a large amount of work that's been done on statistical author identification. I wonder whether somebody who knows how it works could analyse the Groklaw archives to determine whether the same person wrote all the posts (though you might need to process the text first to remove quotations).

    I'm not a regular reader of Groklaw - it's become abundantly clear that SCO is unlikely to win and the case is just going through extended death throes - but on the occasions I've done so PJ's writing style seemed pretty consistent.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by StikyPad ( 445176 )
      Not that I think she isn't a real person, but such a test would be meaningless.

      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!!!
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by bersl2 ( 689221 )
      This article about her experience at LinuxWorld 2005 in Boston [] comes to my mind whenever doubts are cast about her existence.
  • Personally (Score:4, Funny)

    by WillRobinson ( 159226 ) on Tuesday February 13, 2007 @11:42PM (#18007484) Journal
    I am looking forward to watching PJ saunter down towards the stand in her red dress, as the crowd throws rose pedals.
  • by andy314159pi ( 787550 ) on Tuesday February 13, 2007 @11:42PM (#18007494) Journal

    A few days ago PJ posted a note on Groklaw saying that she is taking some time away from the blog for health reasons;

    SCO's lawyers apparently believe that "Pamela Jones" does not exist
    I would say that failing to exist would indeed be a serious health problem that you should probably take time out to treat.
  • Forbes again. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by AJWM ( 19027 ) on Tuesday February 13, 2007 @11:47PM (#18007518) Homepage
    Hey, this is Forbes. They're a known SCO schill, always eager to publish puff pieces by their reporter whats-his-name (Dan's Lying? something like that) that are basically slightly revised SCO press-releases.

    I wouldn't take any of it too seriously.
    • Re:Forbes again. (Score:4, Interesting)

      by _Sprocket_ ( 42527 ) on Wednesday February 14, 2007 @03:48AM (#18008924)

      Hey, this is Forbes. They're a known SCO schill, always eager to publish puff pieces by their reporter whats-his-name (Dan's Lying? something like that) that are basically slightly revised SCO press-releases.

      This isn't the first time Daniel Lyons has floated the "who is Pamela Jones" line []. That particular article also shed tears over O'Gara being called down for her stalking. It is worth noting that both Lyons and O'Gara (for whatever reasons) tend to tow SCO's line in their articles. And both have been soundly criticized by PJ and Groklaw. Anyone new to this should note there's a bit of a nasty history going on here. As the parent pointed out, there's little wonder where this article comes from.

  • by Grond ( 15515 ) on Tuesday February 13, 2007 @11:49PM (#18007532) Homepage
    A lot of people are asking why SCO would want to do this or would care. My theory is that SCO hopes to get access to IBM's attorneys' work product.

    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)

    by jamienk ( 62492 ) on Tuesday February 13, 2007 @11:50PM (#18007538)
    Not only is PJ a real person, but she is one of the few public intellectuals who really inspire with her integrity, honesty, and quirkiness. I swear I almost shed a tear when she resigned from a paying job to quickly dispel the FUD-of-the-week about her. It is amazingly rare to read such a person in todays world on issues of technology, business, and the law.

    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!
    • by arun_s ( 877518 ) on Wednesday February 14, 2007 @12:08AM (#18007660) Homepage Journal

      ..she is one of the few public intellectuals who really inspire with her integrity, honesty, and quirkiness. I swear I almost shed a tear when she resigned from a paying job to quickly dispel the FUD-of-the-week about her.
      I started reading Groklaw late, but I did find about this incident too. The link is here [].
      And here's a memorable quote from that post, where she's explaining her reasons for resigning:
      Money is nice, but integrity is everything. --PJ, Groklaw.
      Truly an amazing lady.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Brandybuck ( 704397 )
      Quirk: She ardently enforces a policy of no cursing
      As she is not a lefty blogger, that is not a quirk. In fact, it's a quite common trait out in the real world.
  • by Polarism ( 736984 ) on Tuesday February 13, 2007 @11:58PM (#18007596)
    While I have always personally thought Pamela to exist in the flesh, the timing here is rather interesting. Whoever he or she is, they have made great efforts to create as small of a footprint as possible on the internet. I usually pride myself in being able to find information on things that are quite hard to find information about, and i'll tell you what, it wouldn't surprise me if there is no "Pamela Jones".

    Hopefully I'm wrong and she exists.
  • by dcollins ( 135727 ) on Wednesday February 14, 2007 @12:15AM (#18007700) Homepage
    FTA: "Jones also has criticized some journalists who cover the lawsuits, including this reporter, accusing them of being biased in favor of SCO."

  • by Facegarden ( 967477 ) on Wednesday February 14, 2007 @12:19AM (#18007718)
    Pamela Jones is really Keyser Söze! [] -Taylor
    P.S.-How do i make the text the link i want on here?
  • by marklyon ( 251926 ) on Wednesday February 14, 2007 @12:33AM (#18007830) Homepage
    I have had direct communication with Pamela regarding PACER - specifically watermarking of documents obtained on PACER.

    Her anger with me over my desire to label my documents with my website's URL is not the type of thing that a group of corporate attorneys at IBM would care about.
  • by GaryPatterson ( 852699 ) on Wednesday February 14, 2007 @01:08AM (#18008060)
    So what if Pamela Jones is real or not? Since she's reporting and commenting on the trial, how can she be important to the outcome of it? Does SCO claim that Groklaw is biasing a judge?

    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)

    by golodh ( 893453 ) on Wednesday February 14, 2007 @01:14AM (#18008100)
    It's more than a bit nauseating from SCO, but unfortunately that's what we have come to expect from them. It's sad, but just when we thought they had plumbed the depths of unethical behaviour by their endless shennenigans in court, they found something new to try. Let's make it personal. Let's drag someone into the limelight who has been bugging us for years by exposing our gaffes, inconsistencies, inaccuracies, misrepresentations ... and outright fabrications.

    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

  • by SQLz ( 564901 ) on Wednesday February 14, 2007 @02:09AM (#18008420) Homepage Journal
    I mean, the guy was worse the the Iraqi information minister, now he's off the map. Last I heard I was looking for a lost breifcase with millions of lines of infringing code.
  • by knorthern knight ( 513660 ) on Wednesday February 14, 2007 @02:29AM (#18008530)
    Part of SCOX's strategy was to cause IBM so much bad PR, that it would be worth their while to settle. What Groklaw has done is to expose SCOX's case (or lack thereof), destroyed SCOX's PR offensive, and nullified much of SCOX's FUD. The result is that IBM isn't hurting anywhere near as much as SCOX had hoped. Simply by reporting the truth, PJ has made things very difficult for SCOX. If she is named as a witness, PJ would be very restricted in what public statements she could make, and Groklaw gets effectively shut down. This might be a new legal tactic in the age of blogging. Strategic Subpeona Against Public Participation == SSAPP

    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.
    • by creysoft ( 856713 ) on Wednesday February 14, 2007 @03:22AM (#18008806)
      I'm not worried. Even if they did managed to silence PJ, what she has built is far, far more important. Groklaw will carry her torch forward with renewed vigor.

      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.
  • by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Wednesday February 14, 2007 @07:24AM (#18009834)
    A writer that does not exist writing about a lawsuit that has no basis.
  • Yes sure... (Score:4, Funny)

    by ArcticCelt ( 660351 ) on Wednesday February 14, 2007 @07:28AM (#18009864)
    " SCO's lawyers apparently believe that "Pamela Jones" does not exist and that Groklaw is penned by a team of IBM lawyers. "

    Interesting, from my part I always thought that Darl doesn't really exits and that all his declarations are in fact penned by a team of buffoons and clowns hired to entertain us.

  • by 0x0000 ( 140863 ) <> on Wednesday February 14, 2007 @12:28PM (#18012778) Homepage

    SCO's lawyers apparently believe that "Pamela Jones" does not exist and that Groklaw is penned by a team of IBM lawyers

    Well, if they really believe that, why do they keep calling her [unlisted] phone number late at night, panting into the phone, engaging in crude sexual innuendo, and talking about they've got in their "briefs"? They're hot for IBM's legal team? Turned on by men in suits carrying breifcases? What?

    For her to show up at court while the SCO pricks are there would de facto violate the restraining order she had to file against them back before christmas - she can't be required to comply with a subpeona which would cause her to nullify the order of another court, can she? The judge in the SCO case could just throw the bums out - the she could legal appear, but it would be moot. "Health reasons" indeed...

    She could pay a lawyer to appear on her behalf, but then who is going to cover that cost out of her pocket? This is purely a vindictive move on the part of SCO in attempt to punish Groklaw for daring to have an opinion that runs counter to the M$-mandated opinions they are paid to perpetrate. Hasn't anyone looked at prosecuting SCO? Their actions have clearly crossed the line into criminal behavior.

    This is just SCO's way of trying to get around the restraining order - it's harassment under color of Law. "Pricks" is a polite word for those sick, miserable fucks...

    And again - since it bears repition: The legal content on Groklaw stands on its own - who wrote it is completely beside the point, and any attempt to introduce the author into the procedings is simply and attempt by SCO to disrupt the court by engaging in personal attacks which must - under the Law - have no bearing on the case. Any competent judge would see this immdediately. Your move, judge.

"If you lived today as if it were your last, you'd buy up a box of rockets and fire them all off, wouldn't you?" -- Garrison Keillor