Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
The Courts Government Caldera IBM News IT

Groklaw No Front for IBM 206

A Groklaw Reader writes "After all the wild speculation SCO put forth about Pamela Jones, her alleged subpoena by SCO, and her recent vacation due to illness, we now have Stephen J. Vaughan-Nichols writing to say 'Yes, there is a PJ.' In his own words, he says, 'Let me address this directly. Yes, Pamela Jones is a real person. I've met her several times [...] I consider her a friend. She is not a front for anyone.' Hopefully, this statement will be enough to put those SCO-induced conspiracy theories to rest."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Groklaw No Front for IBM

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

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

    Vaughn-Nichols recently interviewed Darl McBride [], 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!

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

    by LinuxGeek ( 6139 ) * < c o m> on Thursday February 15, 2007 @09:41PM (#18033542)
    She has been a great guide into the odd world of courts and lawyers so far. It's great to know that my paypal donations haven't just been beer money for IBM lawyers... :)
  • sarcasm (Score:5, Insightful)

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

    Of course, because assertions of plain-as-day truth have always stopped them dead in their tracks in the past...
  • but who is he? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by antoinjapan ( 450229 ) on Thursday February 15, 2007 @09:47PM (#18033598)
    I heard tell Stephen J. Vaughan-Nichols was a front for the front for IBM, so we are back where we started.
  • by peragrin ( 659227 ) on Thursday February 15, 2007 @09:50PM (#18033632)
    What is this IRC?

    Pictures can be faked.
  • by MindStalker ( 22827 ) <> on Thursday February 15, 2007 @09:51PM (#18033654) Journal
    Either way they are issuing a supeana.. Meaning if she exist she will be forced to appear in court soon. And then this whole thing will be laid to rest.. End of story..
  • by rtb61 ( 674572 ) on Thursday February 15, 2007 @09:55PM (#18033688) Homepage
    They obviously know she is real and undoubtedly SCO or M$ or most likely both, had private investigators etc. track her down so that if any competitor was involved in any way shape or form with her, they could threaten the competitor with court actions.

    Typical of modern corporate B$/PR this is just the use of the big lie to try a create doubt about the value of the person and the admirable qualities of their efforts.

    There are really people out there who do actually care about other people, even strangers, and will go out of their way to help them. Only the minority are driven by greed as their sole motivation and corporate executives just will have to learn to accept, that they are in fact the abnormal psychopathic minority, whilst they sit there cowering behind their corporate veils, as they blame their endless moral misdeeds upon every one else but themselves.

  • credability (Score:4, Insightful)

    by timmarhy ( 659436 ) on Thursday February 15, 2007 @09:56PM (#18033694)
    i'm guessing this whole stunt is meant to try sway public opinion so heavily influenced by groklaw, back into sco's favour. it's a really desperate attempt since it's so obviously false and easily proven so. besides i can't see how pj could possibly prove useful in any of sco's claims against IBM. my guess is it's a stall tactic and it'll backfire and have the judge angry about wasting his time.
  • To be fair... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by seebs ( 15766 ) on Thursday February 15, 2007 @10:04PM (#18033758) Homepage
    This isn't exactly convincing evidence that she exists, let alone that she's not a paid shill.

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

    On the other hand, since there was never any reason to believe she was a paid shill, that hardly matters... But I don't see any reason for SCO to change their stance based on this.
  • What, exactly, is the accusation? Even if she is a front for IBM and even (heavens, dare I say it ...) is paid by IBM... So? Does that somehow change the validity (or lack thereof) of her argument(s)? IBM employs (as in pays to work for them) dozens dozens of lawyers — are they all somehow inferior to what she is (or implies to be)?

  • by Dystopian Rebel ( 714995 ) * on Thursday February 15, 2007 @10:24PM (#18033908) Journal
    For whom is SCO a front?
  • Re:credability (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Sj0 ( 472011 ) on Thursday February 15, 2007 @10:55PM (#18034154) Journal
    SCO has shat on the legal system, and there's no turning back. There's no stopping that SCO is pretty much dead when the music stops, since they'll have to face up to the criminal acts the company has perpetrated as well as penalties for the frivolous lawsuits. It's in their best interest to draw it out as much as possible, because this is their last dance.
  • Yes, proof! (Score:5, Insightful)

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

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

    Yes, because as we all know, proof of a lack of conspiracy stops conspiracy theorists dead in their tracks!

    Now please excuse me. The Illuminati are after me and I have to change identities.

  • by Hotawa Hawk-eye ( 976755 ) on Thursday February 15, 2007 @11:19PM (#18034330)
    PJ has been the target of stalkers before. Because of that I suspect that if the process servers do manage to serve her with the subpoena, she'll request that the judge and the court make arrangements for her safety and anonymity while she gives her deposition.
  • by khallow ( 566160 ) on Friday February 16, 2007 @12:05AM (#18034626)

    Even if Groklaw were astroturf for IBM, would it have relevance to the court case? Unless it somehow showed that IBM violated a court order (eg, leaked something that they weren't supposed to), then there's nothing there. It sounds like a harrassment tactic to me.

    I guess SCO still has some of that MS money to consume. Otherwise they'd have stopped by now.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16, 2007 @12:07AM (#18034638)
    "She has been a great guide into the odd world of courts and lawyers so far. It's great to know that my paypal donations haven't just been beer money for IBM lawyers... :)"

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

    But seriously, if PJ wasn't a team of lawyers then WTF HAVENT THEY HIRED HER!!! PJ has been successfully locating and presenting the ammunition IBM needs for their case. She is clearly worth her weight in gold!

    PJ keep up the great work :)
  • It doesn't matter who PJ is. So what, someone wanting to take the time to research an issue, and blog about it. Within the legal context, it's no different than Mark Felt feeding info to Woodward and Bernstein, except PJ is her own publisher. Neither Felt or PJ was/is of legal significance. Neither the Washington Post or Groklaw were/are submitting evidence into a court of law. They were/are just reporting on things that other people can choose to follow up on... or not.

    Naturally, the people being reported on want to know who's doing the reporting. They're getting more light shone on things they'd just as soon everyone and their uncle didn't know about, and more importantly, start to care about. It fucks up their PR game. If Nixon or McBride found/find out who's reporting on them, they could/can try to fuck up the source's shit, and divert attention.

    I read the Economist every week, where virtually none of the stories include a byline. Over time, the body of the magazine's work stands on its own, or doesn't. As with the Economist, as with PJ.

    Knowing who PJ is is politically relevant, but not legally relevant.
  • Re:To be fair... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by dbIII ( 701233 ) on Friday February 16, 2007 @12:58AM (#18034988)
    We are being trolled by SCO and there really is nothing she could tell the court that is relevant at all since she is reporting on information that has already come before the court. They just want to put her through some sort of Amityville horror to waste court time and generally be nasty. This is SCO money after all and not Darl's money.
  • by DrJimbo ( 594231 ) on Friday February 16, 2007 @03:10AM (#18035666)
    Technician said:

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

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

    Technician said:

    If she was tipped off that someone was stalking her (trying to serve her), I could easly understand her wanting to take some time off for her health.
    PJ had a series of health issues before taking time off. You seem to be implying that her claim to need time off to get her health back was phony.

    Perhaps you know nothing at all about PJ, but I know her through Groklaw and email exchanges. She has displayed more integrity than anyone else I know on the Internet. I find it odd that you choose to disbelieve her and yet you take the word of known liars as if it were gospel.

    I agree with you to the extent that I think it is possible that PJ's leave of absence was related to SCO's moves against her. But PJ took her leave of absence well before Lyons' story about her broke. I admit is it possible that Lyons and SCO are breaking with their long tradition of telling mostly lies and this time are telling the truth. But given their track record and the fact that their current, unverified, story makes PJ look bad, I'm going to have to see some proof before I believe them.

    In an ideal world, when you lie over and over and over again, people stop believing you.

  • Ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Xenographic ( 557057 ) on Friday February 16, 2007 @03:35AM (#18035786) Journal
    > King George swore up and down that Iraq had WMDs, did that make it so?

    PJ has a lot more credibility than Bush. I don't think anyone who knows anything about both of them could deny that at this point. I can't name any politician, however popular, with as much credibility as PJ, frankly.

    > If Stephen J. Vaughan-Nichols announces "aliens are real, I've seen them" tomorrow, is SETI going to shut down on Saturday?

    PJ isn't an alien (last I knew). Also, this claim isn't even new. I can't remember the exact articles off the top of my head, but I know they've mentioned meeting long before this. I remember PJ's article about visiting a Linux expo (it's too late for me tonight) and how she described all the people there, the speeches, etc. As well as how she was too shy to introduce herself to much of anyone. Even if you're a really good writer, I don't think you could fake things like that. Her desire for privacy has been constant... and well-founded after the Maureen O'Gara article detailing how SCO was stalking PJ, and how her locks had allegedly been tampered with by someone, etc.

    > If Bill Gates said he had met Pamela Jones, would the Slashdot community be so all-accepting?

    Hell yes! Given that the information indicating that Microsoft helped convince SCO's investors to give them money, he'd be the last person to vouch for her. As such, it would be something like an "admission against interest" which, in a court of law, is one of the few hearsay exemptions. In other words, a very good reason to think that what was said was reliable.

    > In fact, in my opinion, if she does exist but continues to not step forward, then she is even more childish than SCO is.

    Don't be stupid. She's already said that she's sick. We already know that she's a very private individual (always has been). And if she's being subpoenaed, she probably can't discuss it with us. That sucks, but it's just the way things work. That may even be SCO's intent.

    And what do you mean "does exist"? Clearly *someone* exists--those articles don't write themselves. If you've ever read Groklaw, you'd recognize her voice behind her words. I've made tons of comments, I've posted lots of stories from Groklaw over to here, many when I was too lazy to log in (like this one :P), and I've conversed with her in email, etc. I may not have met her in person, but I damn well recognize her. It's PJ. It has always been PJ. I don't know much else, but I damn well know that she exists and is just one person.

    Having played text based games for years, my "alt finding" ability is very high. I've identified many alts by their writing; everyone has a few little idiosyncrasies. PJ has plenty, like her particular sense of humor. Whoever PJ is, it's always been the same PJ and it's always been the same person. There's no doubt whatsoever in my mind, and I have several years worth of articles and comments to back that up.

    So let's take the converse--just what makes you think she doesn't exist? Why would you rely on Darl's speculation, the fellow who told us how SCO would definitely win this, how they had mountains of evidence (Judge Kimball already called him on that once), and who is now leading SCO into bankruptcy (see their SEC filings for proof), over the word of PJ, a woman who publicly turned down a great job opportunity because it might undermine her credibility?
  • by CmdrGravy ( 645153 ) on Friday February 16, 2007 @04:51AM (#18036060) Homepage
    Why haven't they hired her ?

    I would guess that firstly since Groklaw is doing such a great job of getting out the message that SCOs claims are totally baseless and it's doing so without any of IBMs money there's no need to hire her and secondly if they did hire her then she couldn't very well continue to run Groklaw with any sort of pretence at impartiality at all thus ruining what is a great propoganda tool for IBM.
  • Even if she isn't paid directly by IBM, I'm sure that she is either a former employee or has some other tight ties to the company. If I remember correctly, she lives in a part of New York state where it is pretty much impossible to swing a cat without hitting and IBM employee.

    Of course, I live in a part of Michigan where it's "pretty much impossible to swing a cat without hitting" an employee of the 'big three' automakers. I know and am related to several people who work for them. And yet, I'm not a former employee nor do I have any other 'tight ties' to such a company.

    Seeing as 'the place that she (apparently) lives' appears to be the only actual fact you're basing any of your conclusions on, I have to say I find your case... unconvincing.

At work, the authority of a person is inversely proportional to the number of pens that person is carrying.