Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Groklaw No Front for IBM

Posted by CowboyNeal on from the killing-the-messenger dept.

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."

6 of 206 comments (clear)

  1. Subpoena issues by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 5, Interesting

    OK, so now Stephen J. Vaughan-Nichols will get subpoenaed :)

    But on a more serious note: Does anyone understand why SCO actually claims to have a need to talk to Pamela Jones? Do they *need* a pretense in order to subpoena someone for a civil case?

    1. Re:Subpoena issues by DrJimbo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yes, they need a pretext to subpoena someone. Otherwise politicians (and other people of interest) would be routinely subpoenaed for no good reason in cases they have nothing to do with.

      I suspect SCO has a twofold interest in subpoena-ing PJ now. First, she is on a break to recover her health. SCO is just the sort of pond scum that cannot resist kicking someone when she is down. I believe they really want to worsen PJ's health.

      The second reason is to delay partial summary judgment in the Novell case that would require SCO to put into escrow an amount equal to the funds they got from Microsoft and Sun for "Sys V" licenses. SCO no longer has that much cash on hand so if the PSJ is granted, SCO will go into casters up mode.

      SCO's sees this as a win-win. Either they further compromise PJ's health or she continues to rest up and they get yet another delay in the Novell case.

      --
      We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
      -- Anais Nin
  2. Re:What's wrong with being "a front for IBM"? by mungtor · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Of course being paid by IBM or associated with IBM doesn't change the validity or logic of any of her arguments.

    What is _does_ do, however, is undermine the idea that she is just a single person who is altruistically "fighting the good fight" to protect Open Source. That is the persona she works hard to present and garners a lot of support from the Open Source community by being "one of the little guys", ie. just like them. A valliant crusader fighting evil wherever it may be, etc, etc, etc.

    Even if she isn't paid directly by IBM, I'm sure that she is either a former employee or has some other tight ties to the company. If I remember correctly, she lives in a part of New York state where it is pretty much impossible to swing a cat without hitting and IBM employee. She's there to collect information and pass anecdotes of interest on to the actual IBM lawyers. In a way, they've open sourced their defense. They've put millions of eyes and brains to work on their behalf and then skim the cream off the Groklaw comments.

    Frankly, it's brilliant. It hardly matters that IBM doesn't need Groklaw to win their case. What matters is that they are wining it faster, decisively, and able to gauge the OS community reaction nearly instantly.

  3. Re:Seeing is believing. Conversely.... by Schraegstrichpunkt · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Can you issue subpoenas once the discovery process is over?

    --
    http://outcampaign.org/
  4. I wonder... by Xenographic · · Score: 4, Interesting

    > It takes a good reason to get a judge to squash but it CAN be done.

    Well, I've heard unsubstantiated rumors that she got a restraining order against SCO (perhaps after the Maureen O'Gara stalking bit?), so that would sound like one good reason to me.

    Another would be that I *really* have to wonder what she allegedly knows about--everything she's found, she's put up on Groklaw that I've seen. The only exception might be some sealed filings that SCO somehow... mistakenly... made available anyhow. PJ was too honest to even read them, so far as I know. She mentioned that she knew about them, preferred to do everything honestly.

    Oh, and IANAL, but you quash subpoenas :] There's no 's' in quash. Alas, PJ never posted an article on how subpoenas work, so I don't know enough to know what she might do, but I suspect she'll get a lawyer to handle it for her whenever she finds out about it.

  5. Re:Seeing is believing. Conversely.... by ggeens · · Score: 3, Interesting

    SCO wants to discredit Groklaw. That's all.

    If PJ doesn't show up in court, SCO can go on claiming she doesn't exists. If she does show up, she's in for a very nasty examination. SCO will probably want to go into details about PJ's private life, connections to IBM and Novell.

    Most likely, they won't find anything. But they might succeed in cracking PJ by forcing her out in the open.

    --
    WWTTD?