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.
Wouldn't be the first time (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Wouldn't be the first time (Score:5, Insightful)
Darl is a paranoid maniac.
Wait, how exactly is this news? We all already knew Darl was a paranoid maniac. kdawson, are you trolling for pageviews or something?
Re:Wouldn't be the first time (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Wouldn't be the first time (Score:5, Funny)
Hey, don't blame Darl for being paranoid.
The whole tech world really is out to "get him." :p
Re:Wouldn't be the first time (Score:5, Funny)
Does it matter? (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, if Groklaw was run by IBM lawyers, why would it get involved in the Sony rootkit fiasco [groklaw.net]? 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)
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)
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.
Do you really not know what that's spoofing? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Does it matter? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Does it matter? (Score:5, Insightful)
Often the message is subjective. Knowing who the messenger is provides some context to the message; even more so when you find deception involved.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Does it matter? (Score:5, Insightful)
You certainly should take into account the messenger when attributing credibility to statements of fact. Inferences, however, should stand on their own and the messenger should have no effect on how you view them.
Also: if you are getting all your information channeled by a certain source, then you should question the objectivity of the section of information.
In the case of Groklaw, PJ is commenting on documents and proceedings that are matters of public record. In effect, she is making no assertion that she has any special first hand knowledge of the case, so you must decide the degree to which you believe that the court documents actually represent the statements of the parties to the case.
Furthermore, while she may be the most comprehensive information source on the SCO case, we have access to mainstream media coverage and SCO's own statements. We are not in danger of seeing only data cherry picked by PJ to put SCO in a bad light.
Therefore, I'd say PJ's identity is not relevant.
Re:Does it matter? (Score:5, Funny)
And it's a good thing too..otherwise we wouldn't have anyone left writing article summaries for Slashdot.
Re:Does it matter? (Score:5, Funny)
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!
Re:Does it matter? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Does it matter? (Score:5, Funny)
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:
Ethics Rules and Devil's Advocate (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
Re:Does it matter? (Score:5, Insightful)
I love reading Groklaw, and have learned a ton about the legal process in the bargain. The best articles I've found are the ones with the dullest titles: "SCO's motion to reconsider second part of the ruling with the..." These are the ones where PJ says, "OK, here's where the judge is being asked by the lawyers according to this procedure which was developed to make sure that..." yadda yadda. That's when I learn the most. I also enjoy reading her triumphant gloating whenever IBM snags a victory, which has been often.
When the articles have provocative titles, it's typically her going on a rant. While I agree with much (if not all) of what she says on these rants, they're not typically very educational -- to me. She's preaching to the choir. So I don't get as much out of it. I kind of wish she wouldn't write these, and this article in Forbes is what happens when you mix in the bad with the good like this. She's said some really nasty things about Forbes. It isn't right for Forbes to stoop to -- well, the level she accuses them of being on anyway -- but if she could hold off on the name-calling, she probably doesn't draw their ire in such a personal attack piece.
But then, given Forbes' record, they probably would do this, anyway, so what do I know? (Expect to see a piece attacking Slashdot poster Rimbo soon.)
Re:Does it matter? (Score:4, Funny)
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. [youtube.com]
Re:Does it matter? (Score:5, Insightful)
Either you don't read Groklaw or don't understand what it is.
Groklaw is not ANTI 'SCO', it is PRO TRUTH and intended to educate about the legal process.
When TSG (The SCO Group) comes out with a claim, i.e., "mountains of evidence" or "copied code", Groklaw does not attack them. Instead, it says "show us the evidence, show us the code'.
I do not feel it is Groklaws fault that TSG is wanting to use lies, PR (is that redundant?), and FUD to try to prevail over IBM.
Groklaw points out when IBM is right and when they are wrong and they also point out when TSG is right and when they are wrong. That TSG has not been right is not due to Groklaw being 'antiSCO' but due to TSG not being right. Claims otherwise are just handwaving and attempts at distraction - "Look at the Wookie!"
What part of TSG claiming to own copyrights that they would have bought from Novell but Novell states were never sold would PJ be able to testify about?
In my opinion, any attempt to depose PJ would be a fishing expedition, looking for information to gag a journalist, not for information expected to be of value in the litigation at issue.
I also find it interesting that TSG has been claiming they knew all about PJ, but now they can't seem to find her. Looks to me like either their prior claims were true but they are bungling the service of the deposition, or their prior claims were lies. Putting my best PROSCO spin on the situation, they are either liars or incompetent.
If the emperor really is not wearing any clothing, then pointing out that the emperor is not wearing any clothes is not pro-emperor or anti-emperor, it is just the truth - no matter how inconvenient it might be for the emperor.
If TSG is lying, then pointing out that TSG is lying is not proSCO or antiSCO, it is just the truth - no matter how inconvenient it might be for TSG.
The whole premise behind it's existence was to oppose what amounts to an appropriation of an entire tranche of human creative thought by corporate interests using ethically questionable legal methods.
I think that is just a fortuitous result, the stated purpose of Groklaw is to examine and learn about the legal process using cases that are of interest. TSGs effort to extort fees from linux users definitely piques a lot of interest, and their claims, being so easily debunked, have made great fodder for the examination portion of the equation, and TSGs continued efforts to delay have contributed just as greatly to the education side of the equation.
I think TSGs efforts at "appropriation of an entire tranche of human creative thought by corporate interests using ethically questionable legal methods." is deplorable, and I applaud IBMs meticulous defense against basically baseless claims, but Groklaw is only highlighting TSGs mis-steps, not opposing them.
Light causes cockroaches to scurry for cover, but the light is not anti-cockroach, nor does it oppose cockroaches, it is just something the cockroaches don't like. Reminds me a lot of TSG and the truth.
Well, it is a known fact... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Well, it is a known fact... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Well, it is a known fact... (Score:4, Funny)
Close but no cigar. I have from the best sources available that it's really Dateline preparing a big story on PC OS...but keep it on the DL. They will combine it with the true story of ASL and its effect on AOL. They are trying to bring it to the media market PDQ.
I'd be stoked (Score:5, Interesting)
But somehow I don't think so. Somehow I think she's just kinda knackered.
Dave
Re:I'd be stoked (Score:5, Funny)
Posting anonymously for obvious reasons.
Re:I'd be stoked (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I'd be stoked (Score:5, Funny)
O
/|\ <--- you
|
/ \
Coincidence? (Score:3, Insightful)
I mean what if she is actually a lawyer at a firm that works with SCO (or a SCO employee)? Hell, if she is any lawyer, para-legal or judge the revelation that she runs groklaw could cause serious problems for her. Many big companies, especially software companies, might be quite reluctant to trust their work to a firm whose employee is so passionately advocating for free software on the Internet.
Maybe she is afraid that as a witness she will get tan
To be Clear (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I'd be stoked (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll bet she wouldn't be anonymous for very long if she used Microsoft products.
Re:I'd be stoked (Score:5, Informative)
Added to that I've spoken to her on the phone and exchanged over the last few years perhaps a couple of dozen emails, she seems very real to me.
BTW, the article I mention above was withdrawn almost if not totally by all the websites that carried it and indeed some news editors resigned from their posts in protests at what they and many others saw as a gross violation of privacy.
All the details can be found on Groklaw itself, and Im sure creative use of the internet archive can bring back the disappeared articles no problem.
And finally, whilst I have no idea about the status of PJ health, I can say from the conversation I had with her a couple of months back I was left thinking she felt pressured and harassed (she didn't say that, it was just the impression I got), I can also confirm from conversations I've had with her she holds herself to a very high level of integrity in what she does and says.
That SCO are trying to find her again, after the last debacle just leaves me with an even bitterer taste in my mouth with SCO, something I didnt think was possible.
So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
What are the grounds for a subpoena? I don't think she has ever made even a passing hint that she has any inside knowledge of anything. On the contrary, it's all just commentary on publicly available filings.
However, I will say that the timing and content of her blog post is totally consistent with someone trying not to be found. Just rm -fP your files and don't log in to the server for a while. As long as you haven't left a trail through billing or domain registration, you'd be nearly impossible to find.
Re:So what? (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
It won't help one bit, of course. (Score:5, Interesting)
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 [wikipedia.org] 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
Scratch that... two suicides (Score:3, Informative)
This is nasty!
This article is like an old family reunion, Maureen is there, Enderle makes an appearance... no Darl, though.
Given SCO's history of harassing her... (Score:4, Interesting)
If you have any doubts as to SCO's character, this sums it up:
http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=148847&
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's comparable to Captain Queeg's determined investigation of the theft of ice cream in the classic Bogart film, The Caine Mutiny [wikipedia.org]. Lacking anything else of substance to confirm his paranoid belief of mass insubordination, Captain Queeg becomes consumed with the delusion that a conspiracy is involved in the disappearance of ice cream on his ship. Unfortunately, this paranoia and further indecision under crisis results in his being relieved of duty.
SCO's relief of duty isn't far away, from reviewing their financials (absent third party financing at this point, 2007 should be their last as an operating concern). Pursuing delusions of a grand IBM conspiracy through the proxy of Pamela is unfortunate. I can certainly understand the absolute frustration some of Salt Lake City's finest socialites must feel in being beaten by unworthy middle class losers, open source geeks and an old money company like IBM. They were confident that political connections, "contributions" to candidates like dear Senator Hatch, ownership of the state judicial system and other entitlements the Salt Lake City elite expect on their home turf would extend to this litigation. Those born with the proverbial silver spoon affixed to their rear egress-orifice simply can't conceive that those from lessor social classes could ever best them.
Having closed at $1.01 today, SCO investors (even those who have shorted the stock) need to remember that when this security stresses, liquidity will be impossible to come by. Expect some real fireworks soon when shareholders discover liquidity necessary to exit is gone and a "bank run" occurs. Those considering shareholder action need to move before the management team constructs their parachutes in the next month or so, leaving nothing for creditors and litigants.
Time's running out...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The real villains turned out to be senior officers, one instigator especially, who chose to follow their own lead instead of faithfully supporting the chain of command and doing what they could to make the situation better instead of worse.
Indeed, watching that movie reversed my interpretation of A Few Good Men.
How about an alternative conspiracy theory? (Score:3, Interesting)
This is silly (Score:5, Informative)
Re:This is silly (Score:5, Funny)
Re:This is silly (Score:5, Funny)
Lemme guess, someone ghost wrote the book for IBM.
And if I met her, shook her hand? Then I guess I dont##$*)#*)(#(*#(CARRIER LOST
Re:This is silly (Score:4, Insightful)
Then you obviously work for IBM.
That's basic conspiracy theory stuff. Anyone who successfully manage to discredit the conspiracy theory, are themselves a part of the conspiracy.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:This is silly (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It even got to a point where PJ declared that she was not suicidal in anyway (after a mysterious suicide in relation to the SCO case) in the event she was found dead under mysterious circumstances.
This will get you started researching it..
http://www.g [groklaw.net]
Sure she exists... (Score:5, Funny)
Seems quite clear to me she's not associated with IBM... I guess SCO doesn't know about Wikipedia.
Re:Sure she exists... (Score:5, Funny)
Pamela Jones, a.k.a. PJ, exists. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Pamela Jones, a.k.a. PJ, exists. (Score:4, Funny)
paradox (Score:3, Insightful)
The greatest trick Pamela Jones ever pulled... (Score:5, Funny)
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)
Oh, so that's what EFF does.
Good thing Forbes cleared that up for me, I thought they do a lot more than that [eff.org]. And what does San Fran have to do with this case? EFF is an national organization -- and though it is based in SF, the article misrepresents tham as being a local group.
Re:A slight to EFF? (Score:5, Interesting)
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 [forbes.com] (ugh... human resources... what a creep). PJ appears to have gotten after him in this Groklaw article [groklaw.net] (which points to this Forbes.com article [forbes.com]). And has mentioned him in several other articles [groklaw.net](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:
As an interesting side note, the reference Groklaw and Forbes articles mention this odd little tidbit:
Does anybody else find it interesting that there is a Redmond, Washington based company named, of all things Vista.com 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?
Theological digression (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
Re:A slight to EFF? (Score:5, Funny)
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?
Re:A slight to EFF? (Score:4)
It's not the equivalent -- most readers will already know what the USMC is. Not so for EFF -- the reason I have a problem with the representation in TFA is that to many Forbes readers, this is probably the first they've heard of EFF. Considering that Forbes is geared towards white-collar businesspeople, many of whom have no particular interest in 'defending bloggers', though they may have an interest in promoting digital freedom in other contexts, I think that it is journalistically irresponsible to define an organization by one small part of their activity.
Delay #... (Score:3, Insightful)
I sincerely hope SCO rots in hell and as for Mr. DM... A jail cell looks nice.
Prerhaps she's on a much needed vacation? (Score:4, Funny)
Enjoy your rest!
Daniel Lyons strikes again (Score:5, Insightful)
MOD PARENT UP! (Score:5, Informative)
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 groklaw.net, 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)
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)
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)
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)
Personally (Score:4, Funny)
I would say that she has a health problem (Score:5, Funny)
Forbes again. (Score:4, Insightful)
I wouldn't take any of it too seriously.
Re:Forbes again. (Score:4, Interesting)
This isn't the first time Daniel Lyons has floated the "who is Pamela Jones" line [forbes.com]. 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.
Work Product Privilege (Score:5, Insightful)
Normally an attorney's work product (memos, notes, theories, etc created as part of the attorney's work for a client) cannot be discovered by the opposing side. It works like attorney-client privilege.
However, just like the attorney-client privilege, the work product privilege can be waived intentionally or unintentionally if the attorney (or client) shares the information with someone outside the attorney-client relationship. SCO's theory may well be that if an IBM lawyer posts to Groklaw an analysis of the case that amounts to a summary of IBM's theory on the case, then SCO should be allowed access to all of the attorney's related work product. Depending on the judge, SCO may even be granted access to all of the work product of every attorney at that firm assigned to the SCO v. IBM case, although that's pretty unlikely unless the judge has some pet peeve about attorneys commenting to the media/public about ongoing cases.
So, while this may seem like just another last-ditch delay tactic by SCO (and it probably is), there may well be a not-entirely-unreasonable legal basis for it.
(Note: I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.)
Re:Work Product Privilege (Score:4, Funny)
Oh, wait, this is SCO we're talking about.
say a word for PJ! (Score:5, Insightful)
Quirk: She ardently enforces a policy of no cursing (she gives warning to users who write "BS"). She claims this is to keep discussion respectful.
She stands tall for what she believes is right, whether it relates to the SCO case or not. She has focused on many other issues, including great coverage of the current MS anti-trust case, and the MS/Novel deal, a well as long and recurring essays on ethics.
She graciously defers to people who know more than her on technical issues, and is willing to change her mind.
The underlying themes of her blog (often discussed explicitly) are:
* The US legal system is an attempt to be fair under difficult and complex situations -- it's hard to see this sometimes, but cynicism is an incorrect analysis.
* Business can be good, but business does NOT mean a sacrifice of all values except a quick buck. She is very pro-business.
* A person who stands firm in their knowledge of truth, even as others attack them, has a very difficult road ahead of them; but those who lie, attack, or surrender face harsh spiritual repercussions. In this, as in almost all of her attitude, a Christian sensibility shines through. But rather than being off-putting, dogmatic, or familiar, she comes across as convincing, passionate, and wise.
Thank you PJ! You are a role model for us all!
Re:say a word for PJ! (Score:5, Informative)
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)
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.
Re:say a word for PJ! (Score:4, Insightful)
"PJ", very interesting.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Hopefully I'm wrong and she exists.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I've heard that a few people have met her in person, though most people don't talk so much about it because she likes her anonymity and most public figures respect that.
Besides, if you read Groklaw enough you'll realise she's definitely one person and pretty definitely a woman. To tell the truth I really wouldn't be surprised if Pamela Jo
This Time, It's Personal (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, no one's mentioned it yet? (Score:3, Funny)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keyser_S%C3%B6ze [wikipedia.org] -Taylor
P.S.-How do i make the text the link i want on here?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
<a href="http://yourURLhere">Your text here</a>
I can confirm PJ's existence. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:I can confirm PJ's existence. (Score:5, Funny)
How Can This Matter to the Trial? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why not subpoena Reuters and AAP? Or anyone who's written an opinion piece about SCO?
SCO has fundamentally confused inputs with outputs. Groklaw is an output of the trial, not an input. Unless they can show Pamela Jones has some priveleged information, they're just wasting time here clutching at straws.
If SCO is clutching at straws here, wasting time, they should be punished and punished hard. I'd like to see jail time for management here, and maybe for lawyers. Should intentionally wasting the court's time be considered contempt?
Nauseating ... (Score:5, Insightful)
About 6 months ago there was this publicist "Maureen O'Gara" who actually went so far as to try and physically stalk Jones, and who saw fit to importune her mother. O'Gara seemed to have become obsessed with Pamela Jones who invariably pointed out holes, inaccuracies, misrepresentations, and plain lack of understanding in O'Gara's articles, and wanted to turn a factual businesslike dispute into something personal by putting Jones's address online. Regretfully, in the good old US of A this means that you will henceforth have to live with the increased probability that some random nutjob will take a shot at you or will otherwise assault you.
Having read Groklaw from the beginning, and having read a sizeable portion of the background materials, I'm firmly convinced that SCO's so-called "case" was only ever a transparant, meritless, and rather dirty attempt to extort money from Linux and Linux users, fortunately based on nothing but sloppy research, slipshod reasoning, and a shameless abuse of the US legal system to boot by trying to cash in on the threat of nuisance lawsuits.
And this "first" is brought to you by Forbes magazine, which is sort of interesting. Why? If you ever were on the lookout for biased, distorted, and inaccurate reporting favouring SCO and bashing all things GPL and Linux ... look no further than Forbes Magazine. Recently they stopped supporting SCO publicly, perhaps because it became obvious that SCO has no evidence of any kind for its grandiose claims. Forbes is also the rag that proudly trumpeted in 2003 that "Linux crunchies" should take SCO's allegations seriously because SCO was such a mean opponent in court and in business: "what SCO wants SCO gets". Forbes is also the magazine that touted dirty business tactics as "capitalism", and was always ready to defend any SCO tactic, no matter how underhanded.
Clearly, as others already remarked, the identity of Pamela Jones has no bearing whatsoever on SCO's case. Jones isn't a party in the case, and neither her testimony nor her identity can make any difference one way or another. Except perhaps with one single exception. A Jury trial. You know ... the place where the accumulated evidence of years is put through the mind of 10 lay persons in a few daily sessions, who then have to decide on guilt or innocence. That jury cannot access background materials on its own accord, but has to take all of its information from opposing lawyers. They may take notes, but that's it. Not put on a good enough emotional show, and you just might get that jury to overlook some home truths ... if they are buried deep enough.
SCO has had two-thirds of their case thrown out already by the magistrate judge for failing to produce competent evidence for their claims, but a lot of the more vague claims (as in "Linux infringes on our IP because it used Methods and Concepts that belong to us. No your honour ... we can't show you the files and line-numbers files where this happens in Linux because we're talking about methods and concepts, not actual code. It's more diffuse.") are still alive.
*sighs* This sort of talk will get you absolutely nowhere with anyone who is computer-literate ... but there's the rub. SCO can ensure that no-one who even remotely knows what the case is about will be on that jury. Why? Because if they're knowledgeable they will have heard about SCO versus IBM, will have read media coverage, e.g. Groklaw, and will have laughed their head off. Can't be
Does Darl Even Exist? (Score:4, Funny)
An attempt to shut down Groklaw? (Score:5, Insightful)
Another reason why SCOX's case depends on showing that she had inside info from IBM. If you agree that a person with some legal background, with research contributed by a loose group of volunteers over the internet, but no inside info from IBM, could put together documentation that so totally destroys SCOX's legal case...
then you have to agree that a university student with some computing background, with research contributed by a loose group of volunteers over the internet, but no inside info from IBM, could put together an OS that totally destroys SCOX's OS in the marketplace... oops.
Re:An attempt to shut down Groklaw? (Score:4, Insightful)
Remember, PJ may have given us 3000-some odd articles, but if her goal was to write a bunch of stuff, she would have written and sold a book. Her point was to bring together the "hackers" of the legal field with the hackers from the computing field, and in doing so create a voice for freedom loving technology users everywhere. You just can't kill that.
You just can't.
It would be fitting (Score:3, Funny)
Yes sure... (Score:4, Funny)
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.
SCO is using the court to commit a misdemeanor (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
>
> awesome..
That's the service GoDaddy uses when you chose "Make this domain private". They hold the registration and then just forward all the e-mail (and US mail too I believe) to whatever they have on record for you.
Most registrars have something similar.
Re:did yall check the whois for groklaw? (Score:5, Interesting)
$ dig +short -t NS groklaw.net
ns2.unc.edu.
ns.unc.edu.
$ dig +short -t MX groklaw.net
0 mail.ibiblio.org.
$ dig +short groklaw.net
152.46.7.81
$ dig +short vhost.ibiblio.org
152.46.7.81
<ConspiracyTheory>
The directory of ibiblio.org is Paul Jones. Perhaps that's the real PJ
</ConspiracyTheory>
Re:did yall check the whois for groklaw? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:did yall check the whois for groklaw? (Score:4, Informative)
what's so awesome? read their terms (Score:3, Informative)
If they really wanted, they could probably subpoena this registrant for the information.. to the next one in the chain.
Re:Timeline (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Doubtful. All of her sources are court filings (which are matters of public record) or things like SCO's own press releases (which are also public), so what's to protect?