Groklaw No Front for IBM

A Groklaw Reader writes "After all the wild speculation SCO put forth about Pamela Jones, her alleged subpoena by SCO, and her recent vacation due to illness, we now have Stephen J. Vaughan-Nichols writing to say 'Yes, there is a PJ.' In his own words, he says, 'Let me address this directly. Yes, Pamela Jones is a real person. I've met her several times [...] I consider her a friend. She is not a front for anyone.' Hopefully, this statement will be enough to put those SCO-induced conspiracy theories to rest."

Comments

Re:Seeing is believing. Conversely....

[twiddlingbits]

Not true. Subpoenas can be squashed by the lawyer of the person who was subpoenaed. It takes a good reason to get a judge to squash but it CAN be done.

Re:Seeing is believing. Conversely....

[darkonc]

This subpoena is issued in the Novell case, which is still in discovery. Discovery is closed in the IBM case, which is why they probably didn't issue the subpoena there.

Personally, I don't see any reason for Novell to issue a subpoena to PJ in the Novell case. In all probability, anything that she has that relates to Novell is already on Groklaw. Given that SCO, and it's agents have already tried to stalk PJ, I'd say that she's got good reason to avoid any possible subpoena from them, unless they show that they actually have real questions to ask her that relate properly to the Novell case, and that SCO couldn't get from their own (or Novell's) files.

Of course,