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.

4 of 477 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Sure she exists... by arth1 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Seems quite clear to me she's not associated with IBM... I guess SCO doesn't know about Wikipedia.

    Yeah, cause we all know that if it's in Wikipedia, it must be true...

    She may or she may not be, but that there's an unreferenced claim on Wikipedia that this is false doesn't tell us less gullible people much.
  2. Re:Sure she exists... by QuickFox · · Score: 0, Redundant

    That proves nothing, anyone can edit Wikipedia.

    --
    Terrorists can't threaten a country's freedom and democracy. Only lawmakers and voters can do that.
  3. Re:Well, it is a known fact... by Teresita · · Score: 1, Redundant

    That there are no real females on the internet. I think SCO may have something here.

    I resemble that remark.

  4. Re:At least you picked the right area code... by eric76 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    It's been my theory all this time that PJ is really a pseudonym for Anna Nicole.

    That theory will be disproven if SCO can manage to conduct a deposition of PJ without the help of a medium.