Groklaw No Front for IBM

Posted by CowboyNeal on Thursday February 15, 2007 @01:31PM 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."

1 of 206 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Subpoena issues by DoofusOfDeath · 2007-02-15 13:44 · 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?