Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

SCO Vs. Groklaw

Posted by kdawson on from the timely-break dept.

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.

5 of 477 comments (clear)

  1. Does it matter? by ZachPruckowski · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?

  2. It won't help one bit, of course. by Xenographic · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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 :(

  3. Re:did yall check the whois for groklaw? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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>

  4. I can confirm PJ's existence. by marklyon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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
  5. Re:A slight to EFF? by LuYu · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...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?

    --
    All data is speech. All speech is Free.