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?
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.
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
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
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!
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&
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
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
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 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
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.
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:
...no oxygen.
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
ibiblio has hosted GrokLaw for years. But I am not Pamela Jones. We also host Eric S. Raymond's site. But I am not Eric S. Raymond.
Certified Black Helicopter Pilot *** Unwitting Dupe of One World Gov'ment
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.
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