Slashdot Mirror
SCO Vs. Groklaw
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.
Remember that fictional movie critic Sony created awhile back? Maybe Pamela eloped with him? :-)
The bitter lessons of a veteran coder: http://bitterprogrammer.blogspot.com
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?
Trust SCO to accuse someone of being a bunch of acrobatic midgets lawyers in a trench coat.
That there are no real females on the internet. I think SCO may have something here.
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.
Dave
I write a blog now, you should be afraid.
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.
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
Seems quite clear to me she's not associated with IBM... I guess SCO doesn't know about Wikipedia.
I, however, am a figment of my own imagination.
All is paradox. Retired lawyer, so this is just one more layman's opinion.
...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.
REM Old programmers don't die. They just GOSUB without RETURN.
PJ taking a break for health reasons: 02/10
Forbes TFA: 02/13/07
FTFA "SCO tried last week to serve a subpoena to Jones" = 02/04 - 02/10
What I don't get is on what grounds SCO can claim that they need to depose PJ, it isn't like she is material to their case.
Couldn't they have just hired a P.I. to find her?
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
tooo funny!
;)
Registrant:
Domains by Proxy, Inc.
DomainsByProxy.com
15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
United States
Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com)
Domain Name: GROKLAW.COM
Created on: 26-Sep-02
Expires on: 26-Sep-09
Last Updated on: 06-Dec-05
go check out http://domainsbyproxy.com/
awesome..
-dirtbag
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.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
In other news, Darl McBride was overheard saying, "I don't believe that CowboyNeal actually exists. I believe that Slashdot is actually written by a bunch of SCO haters."
(Or are you claiming that thing she's on isn't the internet?)
B-)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
I'm Pamela Jones. And so is my wife.
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.
I'll believe in corporations having personhood when Texas executes one... - advocate_one
Groklaw has been around since before SCO's litigation began, and SCO already hired a private detective to find out where she lives months ago, and then provided it to one of their media contacts who was writing whatever BS SCO was feeding them.
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...
I envision the iced Coronas, discarded laptop, and legalese drawn lazily in the sand by a toe.
Enjoy your rest!
until ( $win ) { &cheat }
Slashdot is as stupid for allowing his tripe to be posted here as Forbes is in employing him
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.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
I am looking forward to watching PJ saunter down towards the stand in her red dress, as the crowd throws rose pedals.
Anyone who doesn't know little Danny Lyons is a hack who writes this junk for ad impressions (thanks for paying him, /.) must be living in bizarro world... or Utah... but I repeat myself.
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.
-- Alastair
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.)
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!
Sounds a lot like SCO's case so far.
INSERT INTO comment VALUE('Doh!') WHERE user='you';
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.
c id=12476453
If you have any doubts as to SCO's character, this sums it up:
http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=148847&
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.
All your base are belong to Google.
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
i want her to shwo up in court so bad haha, "oh so i don't exist do i?" let the circus continue i say.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
I think that I think, therefore I think that I am?
I didn't know that the late blond was so into Unix!
FTA: "Jones also has criticized some journalists who cover the lawsuits, including this reporter, accusing them of being biased in favor of SCO."
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
Pamela Jones is really Keyser Söze!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keyser_S%C3%B6ze -Taylor
P.S.-How do i make the text the link i want on here?
Worldwide Military budgets: $2100 billion. Worldwide Space Exploration budgets: $38 billion. Really, world? Really?
IBM does not exist either. It is a front for Karl Marx, who now calls himself Richard Stallman - if you do not believe that, look at beard.
Of course Karl Marx himself is just a front for Pamela Jones.
...as a Jehovah's Witness with a reclusive lifestyle. Took pictures and everything.
What happened to that?
Besides, if it were a team of people that would be too good. She writes like a middle aged Scrabble-playing, mystery novel-reading (or writing), global warming-researching type. One person, not many. If IBM had talent like that the Pentagon should hire that group for the propaganda war against Bin Laden.
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.
-- Mark Lyon http://www.marklyon.org
If you read someone's writing enough, you feel like you know them. You recognize it almost as well as you'd recognize their voice. It shows through in their humor, their choice of words, and even mundane things like how they format and punctuate their work.
I've read Groklaw for a very long time now. If you go way back there, to when Darl was making ridiculous pronouncements every week or so and things were hectic, you'll probably find that I submitted more than a few SCO-related stories to Slashdot that all had links pointing back to Groklaw.
In no event did I suspect, even for a moment, that there was anyone other than PJ writing those articles. Okay, true, Mathfox, Marbux, AllParadox and co. have written a Groklaw article or two, but it was under their own names, and it was very clear that the writing changed even if you didn't bother to read who the post was from.
Basically, what I'm saying is that you're 100% right and this is just more SCO BS. They're just trying something sleazy to get back at a poor innocent lady who did nothing but expose all the inconsistencies in their arguments. To me, it's payback, pure and simple. I'm just sorry that PJ is their target.
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.
It was actually posted to Slashdot ages ago. Of course, it's very old and he might well have changed it by now. I have absolutely no idea whether this information is still accurate. Here's a copy of that old post:
. html
End Reader Licensing Agreement
By reading this, you agree not to sue me and not to use this information in any illegal manner.
Here's all the contact info you should ever need for Mr. McBride.
The SCO Group
355 South 520 West
Suite 100
Lindon, Utah 84042 USA
801-765-4999 phone
801-765-1313 fax
Contact SCO online
http://www.thescogroup.com/company/feedback/index
Darl C McBride
1799 Vintage Oak Ln
Salt Lake City, UT 84121-6539
Darl's home phone #: (801)424-2006
Darl's office phone #: 801-932-5820
Email Darl: darl@sco.com
"Who knows me?"
Your mother.
Either way, She'd still be less nebulous than SCO's claims.
You never catch me alive
how can you photograph someone that doesn't exist.
Photoshop. Or, if you prefer, The GIMP.
They took that pic in the same film studio they faked the moon landings in.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
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?
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
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.
If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:
"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."
It didn't work for the CEO of Conseco. What makes you think it will work for them?
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 tangled up in the case and run into trouble blogging about it? Or maybe she just doesn't want to spend many days in court testifying. Maybe she is only 16 or received money from IBM so she could devote more time to posting. There are a 100 reasons she might have not to want to receive the subpoena.
Obviously there is some reason she doesn't want to be really identified or who she really was would be listed on wikipedia. This reason might be totally benign or not so benign but since it appears she has taken pains to keep her identity secret it is far to much of a coincidence to think she decided to take time off after many years just when SCO is trying to subpoena her.
If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:
It was suggested earlier that Forbes shills for SCO, but JFC, if the first sentence of the article doesn't settle it, I don't know what does: "Pamela Jones has led a relentless online crusade against software maker SCO Group". Er, At one point, maybe, but currently?
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.
If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:
PJ is a journalist. Will she go to jail to protect her sources if SCO should attempt to depose her over info that she received from a source?
SCO, with a bogus lawsuit, has subpoenaed what they claim is a bogus witness, for what?
Hahahahaha! ROTFLMAO!
"To comply with any applicable laws, government rules or requirements, subpoenas, court orders or requests of law enforcement"
If they really wanted, they could probably subpoena this registrant for the information.. to the next one in the chain.
[I'll never login saying this]
In fact, Groklaw's PJ is as witty, sarcastic and intelligent as anyone can be. In fact, had she been my age and... what did you say? Anna Nicole? Yes! I would, I mean should have saved her from that man. PJ wits and Anna's *its, what more could any man want?!
Why do they need Pamela?
Everything posted was public record. Unless and until they prove any slander, libel or any falsehood, they have no need at all of Pamela personally!
Prove it! Then subpoena her!
Sue everyone and anyone... and hope you win... If you do.... retire and run away because everybody hates you.
SCO, go away!
Relocating to San Francisco / Palo Alto... Hire me?
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.
The core beef is that IBM put non-trivial real Unix stuff into a Unix clone (Linux).
Since Sun's Unix (BSD + Sys 5 + lots o' innovation like
proper kernel locks + ZFS + DTrace) is as good as Unix gets
(except for the libertine licensing and a decent GUI like MacOS X),
once is goes GPL (2 or 3, no matter), there is no need for a Unix clone
like Linux to even exist. Linux served its purpose to make Unix
functionality free for the taking. Now on to bigger and better
things, in the spirit of Rob Pike's immortal quotation
"Not only is Unix dead, but it's starting to smell really bad."
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.
I'm not repeating myself
I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
ahahahhaha... i laughed so hard.
and who modded this down? seriously, stupidity like that shouldn't go unpunished.
You're Kilroy!
Another old RSX-11 Hacker! Excellent!!!
Dog is my co-pilot.
> As it stands, you don't exist either. I could say I was her next door neighbor, and that'd just extend one more layer of "doesn't exist" as well. Who knows me?
:]
So... you have to trace yourself back to Kevin Bacon?
It is perfectly legal to assume an alias, as long as you do not intend to use it to commit fraud. Even if she is made up, if there is no fraud involved, no bad.
I have not seen a single post from anyone who has met her in the real world. Does she actually exist?
I have not seen anything in the responses that indicate that she is more than one person. The times of her responses indicated to me that she was not limited to an 8 hour day (I have wondered if/when she slept). If she were a team of people, or a single person hired to do this, I would expect to see something amiss. My bets are on a single committed person or a computer that has passed the Turing test with me.
And they're all related. At least I think so, since all their last names are JPG.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Here's some picture proof:
n erding%20it%20up.jpg
7 139 - my, were we surprised when we found our own picture improved upon!)
http://www.bnac.biz/images/im%20in%20ur%20base%20
(Original source here - http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=2
Didn't they already hire a PI and put up a web page claiming she was a caffeine drinking JW or something?
The first reason SCO may be attacking PJ is because they honestly believe she is a PR person for IBM or their lawyers. This would help them in court possibly. I suspect they are doing this for all of the following reasons in part or in whole:
#1: Intimidate anyone who will give IBM favorable press.
#2: Drag PJ into court where she can be bound by court order not to discuss aspects of the case she was questioned on (and she would be questioned on everything).
#3: Punish PJ for giving IBM favorable press (This goes back to #1).
#4: Attempt to get PJ to say something under oath that she can be sued for (slander, libel, ect.) or charged with (Perjury for example).
#5: Delaying tactic (as mentioned many times in other posts).
#6: Simply to put a face with a name/website that SCO and/or their legal team consider an enemy.
They may other reasons but I suspect that these are the ones motivating them.
Forgive my cynicism but given SCO's past reputation for doing everything devious under the sun to try and discredit everyone I think it is more likely seeing the message, they decided to file.
The real thing that should be investigated is SCO trading whilst insolvent, such a case here in Australia would see the Directors (CEO and rest of the management team) here behind bars very swiftly and for a few years.
Give Pamela some rest she deserves after all the bullshit that has been going on with the various cases she covers for Groklaw and keeping us in touch.
And whilst the shit is flying good luck to the ex pr manager of sco who managed to find someone to employ him.. bit like the Minister for Public Enlightenment and Propaganda Goebbels..
Good Luck
As someone who has "When you want to know more but don't know where to look." at the top of her web site, I would have thought she would relish the chance to set the record straight once and for all.
She has been trying to influence public opinion against SCO all this time. Why would she, with her experience of legal matters, baulk at this?
"Stallman says add to this code and you are one of us. Gates says use this code and you belong to us."
And was it really him? Not an actor (lots of war movies about Monty or Hitler "clones", so its not a novel idea)?
And as someone else mentioned, can Blepp be real, given that he's supposed to have a briefcase full of evidence of millions of lines of copied code in Linux that never seems to have made it to court..?
I think the reality of any human at SCO is less likely than PJ being real and herself...
Well, the Forbes article is essentially sober and correct, which implies that somebody filtered it for Daniel Lyons. This guy is namely totally incapable of sound research and fair assessment.
Just one wishy-washy paragraph:
Here the article is equivocating on the abbreviation SCO, used both for the current litigious company, the SCO Group, and for the old Santa Cruz Operation. Read the paragraph as follows:
The SCO Group has already failed in positioning itself as the successor in law to the Santa Cruz Operation.
All their evidence is vaporous, all their legal arguments are contorsions. What they are trying to do now is to disturbe and hinder as much as possible several Partial Summary Judgment Motions so as to have a large mass of indigestible issues for the jurors, should the case really make it to trial.
Thank you, Pamela, for all you teached me.
That's the equivalent of a blog hidden on a semi-technical site and makes vague references to the maureen somebodyorother.
It's not funny, it's just stupid, and it has nothing to do with the issue at hand. It's the equivalent of some blogger saying president bush is a f*cking moron. It's meaningless.
As Caesar would say:
"Vos es ut bardus ut a nemus"
I'd like to remember you all (and SCO), that Groklaw is not PJ. Groklaw is a huge community that PJ coordinates. Groklaw is also a database of info on the suit but also on a wide range of info surrounding it. Groklaw has long ago passed a point where it can survive without PJ, (though her sense of humor is invaluable). Even if PJ is a corporate effort of IBM, her existence responds to the community need. It is very unfortunate for SCO that it cannot seem to comprehend all its problems it caused itself and desperately wants to find somebody to blame.
When you go to the press with nasty lies about the community in general, many respected people in that community and also about their hard work being really your stolen product, you can expect that community to respond in the fashion you don't like - with many eyes watching you constantly and revealing all of your lies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groklaw#Criticisms
Anyone knows if this is true?
I can't confirm whether she exists or not, but when I sent her some information about some issues of free speech being surpressed in the UK, she certainly responded in a way that said that she's had at least a cursory glance at the issue. Whilst I agree that could have been an IBM lawyer, as an employee of Big Blue myself, I find it hard to believe that they would have even bothered responding.
Wow! Lets just start the x-files theme http://youtube.com/watch?v=t5KJJ83MQUg :D
anyway, here's her picture... ;)
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
She received death threats from nutcases. Can't imagine why she wouldn't want them to know what she looks like and where she lives...
---
We spoke for about a half an hour. I don't recall a thing we said. - Colorblind James Experience
A writer that does not exist writing about a lawsuit that has no basis.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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.
Yahh, hiii haaaaa! -Major Kong, from Dr. Strangelove
When all else failes, kill the messenger. Then kill yourself.
It is well pass time that SCO give someone else the "Hot Potato". I'm sorry they appear to be the last company holding it, but sometimes you lose and need to take your toys home until you can find someone else to play with or move to a new town. Close shop, payout to your employees whatever is left, release all your code into Open Source so you don't strand your customers and give the stockholders whatever is left. Move on.
I'm not really sorry.
Hey, SCO and "MoveOn.org" can work together on this.
Do you know what the previously deposed people in these cases look like, or where they reside?
Thought not. Think of another excuse for her not showing up.
> the SCO Group is trying to subpoena Pamela Jones of Groklaw... ...
> SCO's lawyers apparently believe that "Pamela Jones" does not exist
Is anyone else troubled that fictional characters can now, apparently, be subject to lawsuits?
Wil-e-coyote is fscked!
charlie harvey's website
I wouldn't put it past SCO to try to kill her. HOW many millions have they lost, at least in part to the data PJ has exposed?
I personally have penned some text for Groklaw and can categorically state that I ain't no lawyer and don't work for IBM. I guess being a latter day saint don't inhibit you from telling porkies. Before you condemn me for introducing someones religous affiliation, there is a precedent. A while back a hatchet job was done on Pamela Jones in which her religous affiliation was considered fair game.
davecb5620@gmail.com
It seems to me that IBM already denied any connection to PJ in court. If SCO could depose her and show that there was a connection then IBM would have lied to the court and the attendant consequences would ensue.
SCO has no more reason to think PJ is associated with IBM than they had to think Linux was copied from Unix but, of course, that won't stop them. So my question is; does the fiction that they think PJ is associated with IBM provide them with an avenue to derail or delay the case?
My personal theory is that they're just after vengeance because PJ destroyed most of the FUD value of their cases. It's hard to believe that's all they're up to. Surely they have a better reason to go after PJ; don't they?
It's comparable to Captain Queeg's determined investigation of the theft of ice cream in the classic Bogart film, The Caine Mutiny
Since there was ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in the film about ice cream and it was strawberries that got stolen, I think you ought to lose every point you were given for being "insightful". Making crap up because you're too lazy to look it up should take away from your point score.
I got it on a Groklaw mug from Cafe express.
She even has a red dress on.
No, I'm not an IBM shill;
no, I don't get paid to bash you;
no, I have never met PJ;
but I still hate you and everything this FUD/stock scam stands for.
Drop a line to Cowboy Neal, and have him set up the deposition.
It would make as much sense as deposing PJ, or Esker Melchoir, for that matter.
I will not rest until each and every one of the perpetrators of this criminal extortion attempt is out of the IT industry, and behind bars. Yes, Ralph, that includes you.
LOL stfu nub kthxbye
This is nasty!
This article is like an old family reunion, Maureen is there, Enderle makes an appearance... no Darl, though.
Do not try to subpoena the PJ, for that is impossible. Simply realise the truth: There Is No PJ.
Really, so what? Groklaw is basically just a "distilled to Common English" version of the legal documents that are already publicly available, with links and references to said documents. How does it really hurt SCO at all? Sure, it lends opinions that are somewhat favorable to IBM, but in general so do the court documents so how is that not to be expected? The public has a right to know and understand this information, if the court system can't distill it, who's to say that it's wrong for IBM to do so? And what's stopping SCO from doing the same, you know, other than that they are loosing? SCO's form of involving the public in this case has been to instill FUD, but the thought of IBM spreading reasonably accurate Common English versions of the legal documents is, well, what is it?
- Disclaimer: Information in this post deemed reliable but not guaranteed.
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?
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
Maureen O'Gara (SCO friendly journalist) attempted to publish PJs photo, address and photographs of her house and car previously but got the details wrong. Somehow I can imagine someone from SCO 'accidently' letting slip that PJs would be at a certain place at a certain time if someone wanted to be there with a camera.
The irony of you being AC...
---
We spoke for about a half an hour. I don't recall a thing we said. - Colorblind James Experience
So frigging what if SCO is completely correct in everything they suspect? So what if some lawyers are using Pamela Jones for a pen name -- and I'm not saying they are. Personally, I don't know. What I do know is that it doesn't change a single thing about the SCO/IBM case if it is true. I doubt SCO could even embarrass them if they proved this was happening. This is just SCO wasting time, the court's time, and attempting to hassle anyone they can because THEY HAVE NO CASE!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Or they're dating each other.
Now that you've read it here in the Internet, it must be true.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Google "I like monkeys." Tom took that famous old Internet story and replaced the word "monkey" with "MoGTroll." I can't believe anyone here is unfamiliar with that story. Were you just being funny, and I missed it?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
C'mon Y'all ! This is IBM we're talking about !
...
;-)
'PJ' is the name of IBM's shiny-new, experimental Turing Test Candidate Machine.
Can you tell the difference between IBM's PJ Package and a human being ?
I certainly can't
I sure hope IBM open sources their PJ Library !
-- kjh (for the humor-impaired =>
Wouldn't it be delicious if this lead to Lyons being asked in court if O'Gara was lying when she wrote the stalker article, since it's Lyon's position that Jones doesn't exist.
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
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.
"The Internet is made of cats."
I read through the interesting comments and have one question. If - say - Pamela Jones weren't a real person, then how would a subpoena get served? Also, if PJ is out of the country, there would be no ability to serve the subpoena until she/he/it/they got back.
Am I wrong?
The Kai's Semi-Updated Website Thingy
No, Depose me!
I am sparti^H^H^H^H^H^H P.J.
charlie harvey's website
The number of Pamela Joneses has tripled in the last six months.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
What I found most interesting about it is that apparently people are out to get her.
"Some strange man that "nobody knew," as the super described him, had tried to get into her apartment while she was gone - the Medeco lock she had had installed on her door - something nobody else in the complex seemed to feel a need for - was more expensive than the door. But, as it happened, the super said, she had just sent in her rent in an envelope postmarked Connecticut."
You are reading a copy of my copyrighted post.
If Pamela Jones doesn't exist, there are a lot of love-sick geeks who will be very unhappy. That also explains why, as a woman, she doesn't want her high-profile position to be involve revealing her personal life. Stalking can be very scary. I hope she enjoys this time off. She's earned every minute of it.
SCO is getting desperate. Their lawsuit is circling the drain and the sucking sound is growing louder and louder. The judge and the magistrate judge, knowing IBM has the deep pockets to pay for lawyers, have played this one very carefully. SCO won't have grounds for an appeal and if it gets assessed IBM's legal costs, it's history. The only question is whether there will be legal moves to break through the "corporate veil" that protects the executives from personally paying for their missdeeds.
--Mike Perry, Untangling Tolkien
So... you an Pamela have the SAME LAST NAME, do you? What exactly IS the relationship between the two of you? It's not as if "Jones" is a particularly common last name! Uh, wait a minute...
What will this deposition get you? What if PJ is really "Not who she seems to be?" What will it matter? What are you afraid of? Why are you trying to silence this one voice?
Could it be that you are afraid because the analysis and opinion of PJ's writings have "held water" over time? Are you tired of being put in a bad light because of the tactics you (I mean you and your lawyers) employ? Do you think that your image will improve without this one voice? What about all of the trade articles talking about your lawsuits against your customers? Is harrasment the best that you can do after all this time?
Many people have come to the conclusion that PJ is one person. Exposing this person probably will not have a positive impact on your image - even if it was someone linked to IBM. The ideas expressed on Groklaw are out there - you can't kill an idea! The simple fact that these ideas have held true over time irrespective of the voice that spoke them guarentees their immortality.
Silencing one voice will cause 1000 others to shout out. Open Source is about distributed development of software, hardware, community, public knowledge, and the human race. Remeber Ransom Love's warning: 'Don't do it,' Love says he told McBride. `You don't want to take on the entire Linux community.'
Who are you going to silence next?
Email this page to a friend
The difference between reality and fantasy is a nice soundtrack.
When SCO says they can't find her to serve the subpoena, think about who's trying to serve it. These are the people who couldn't manage to find a valid mailing address for DaimlerChrysler. If Maureen O'Gara can pretty much find PJ, that SCO can't says more about SCO than anything else.
Groklaw is strongly opposed to DRM, which I would not expect from IBM's lawyers.
pamela
Here is a picture of PJ.d etails/pg_1/id_11009230/opt_/fpt_/c_360/
http://www.cafepress.com/buy/groklaw/-/pv_design_
Religion is the main cause of atheism.
Assume for a moment that PJ is a fictional character created by IBM for the purpose of an anti-SCO astroturfing campaign. How would this fact have any relevance to the SCO vs IBM case? Astroturfing is no more illegal than a lawyer giving a press conference to talk up his side of the case. Trying to imagine what LEGAL justification SCO is using for this supoena boggles the mind. Are SCO accusing Growlaw of leaking sealed documents? That is about the only valid justification I can imagine for SCO to supoena PJ. BTW, didn't some zealous MS/SCO shill get slammed last year for publishing PJ's personal information (e.g. address and/or telephone number? That would suggest that PJ is a real person ...
Ward: COTTONWOOD 13th WARD
Stake: Salt Lake Cottonwood Stake
Any Mormon Slashdotter's in Salt Lake want to goto a Sacrament Meeting there?
While I believe that PJ is a real person (there was an article in 2005 by SJVN where he claims to actually have met her) I've seen too many faux pas on Groklaw to consider it worth even following anymore.
Been there, Done that, Sold the t-shirt to the next idiot in line
She's a blogger with a paralegal background.
Too many of her "articles" don't conform to any recognised journalistic standard.
Been there, Done that, Sold the t-shirt to the next idiot in line
Daniel Lyons.
Anything else you need to know? Lyons has been feuding with PJ for years, even since the SCO case came into existence.
Lyons is a known Microsoft and SCO shill.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
It also has a mind-boggling 34% short ratio, and they haven't been able to run up a short squeeze yet because everyone going short believes the worst is yet to come. That's right, over a third of the stock is held by people with an interest in SCOX's failure.
The shorts do not own stock. They owe stock. They sold the stock before they bought the stock.
Religion is the main cause of atheism.
So what?
Whether Pamela Jones is a real single individual or an army of people working at IBM, what bearing does that have on SCO's case? Ans: None. It's just more smoke coming out of the SCO legal team. It won't help them win their case.
True, they may be pissed that somebody's been keeping an accurate track of the case, but so what?
Heard any good sigs lately?
> I am afraid to inform you sir, that you are decidedly not one of the less gullible people.
:-)
There's *no way* I can believe that!
More here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-542713837 4898988918
Sorry I was kinda snide. That's the second time in as many days I've taken someone seriously when they weren't. I've gotta get my joke-detector checked...
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton