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.

Comments

Does it matter?

[ZachPruckowski]

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?

I'd be stoked

[WasterDave]

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

Statistical analysis

[Goonie]

There's a large amount of work that's been done on statistical author identification. I wonder whether somebody who knows how it works could analyse the Groklaw archives to determine whether the same person wrote all the posts (though you might need to process the text first to remove quotations).

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

Re:So what?

[thedarknite]

Apparently, they want to be able to show in court that there is a direct relationship between herself and IBM. Although I don't see how that will help them at all.

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

The SCO vs. IBM lawsuit won't go to trial until a related case, SCO vs. Novell (nasdaq: NOVL - news - people ), has been decided. That case, which is scheduled to be tried later this year, is the one for which SCO is attempting to take a deposition from Jones.

Given SCO's history of harassing her...

[Anonymous Coward]

It wouldn't surprise me in the least if they stepped it up before actually trying to serve her, knowing she couldn't be found if they did that.

If you have any doubts as to SCO's character, this sums it up:

http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=148847&c id=12476453

It won't help one bit, of course.

[Xenographic]

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 :(

Re:did yall check the whois for groklaw?

[Anonymous Coward]

So... even though the registration information is private, we do know a little bit. It seems that the DNS, website, and email are hosted by UNC.

$ 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>

I can confirm PJ's existence.

[marklyon]

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.

Ethics Rules and Devil's Advocate

[logicnazi]

I don't know whether it should have any legal effect but if true it would certainly cause credibility problems for IBM with many people, perhaps including the judge. Moreover, we don't know all of what has been stated in depositions. If IBM or other companies have made claims incompatible with the facts behind groklaw that could be problematic.

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

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

--

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

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

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

Re:A slight to EFF?

[LuYu]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Does anybody else find it interesting that there is a Redmond, Washington based company named, of all things 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?

Re:Forbes again.

[_Sprocket_]

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

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

Theological digression

[abb3w]

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?

SCO is using the court to commit a misdemeanor

[0x0000]

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

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

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

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

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

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