Slashdot Mirror


SCO Legally Assaults PJ of Groklaw

Litigious Bastards writes "SCO has just filed court papers saying that they were unable to subpoena PJ of Groklaw. While they apparently sent their crack team of process servers out looking for random people named Pamela Jones, it would appear that they were unable to locate the bright yellow envelope labeled 'Email PJ' on the Groklaw website to ask for directions to serve her in person. They're once again accusing her of working for IBM or Novell, and Groklaw is now hosting over 20 documents PJ claims were planted in the media in an effort to discredit her. As she says, 'And so the stupidest lawsuit in the history of the world just got stupider. And a whole lot meaner.'"

26 of 340 comments (clear)

  1. Legally assaults? by Askmum · · Score: 5, Funny

    I wasn't aware of the fact that assault was legal in the US.

    SCNR

    1. Re:Legally assaults? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Only if you hit someone with a lawyer.

    2. Re:Legally assaults? by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 5, Funny

      Or you are the VP, on a hunting trip...

      --
      Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
  2. I've heard... by Cytlid · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... that they're also looking for an elusive character to subpoena, his name is "Honest Truth".

    --
    FLR
    1. Re:I've heard... by physicsboy500 · · Score: 5, Funny

      ... that they're also looking for an elusive character to subpoena, his name is "Honest Truth".

      that's funny... I thought they were trying to avoid him

      --
      The original generic sig.
    2. Re:I've heard... by Vengeance · · Score: 5, Funny

      Actually, they keep running smack up against the guy, but never recognize him when they see him.

      --
      It was a joke! When you give me that look it was a joke.
  3. 2 people connected to the scox-scam killed already by walterbyrd · · Score: 5, Interesting

    They may have killed themselves, we really don't know. But, in a country where people are killed over parking spaces, I would be careful about seperating delusional paranoria from legitimate concern for one's safty.

  4. why would she work for IBM... she works for me :) by theonlyholle · · Score: 5, Interesting

    At least I've paid her a couple of times and I suspect others have done the same. There are some very convenient donation links on Groklaw and for every donation I have sent so far I have received a friendly "thankyou" email. But even if she *did* work for IBM, that wouldn't change the facts of the case and I would still enjoy reading the legal analysis, which is pretty sound once you take out the sometimes over the top OSS "fangirlism" that I occasionally find a bit annyoing.

  5. Stupidest lawsuit in history? by giafly · · Score: 5, Funny

    A Montana man has sued media giant Viacom, saying the MTV show "Jackass" plagiarized his name, infringed on the trademark and copyright of his name and defamed his good character. The plaintiff's name is Jack Ass.

    An inmate in a Virginia penitentiary has filed a lawsuit against himself, claiming that he violated his own civil rights by getting arrested.

    When fans of eating can no longer trust their cheese-covered puffs boiled in oil to be healthy, it's more than sad. It's your ticket to millions. Meredith Berkman claims the secret fat caused her "weight gain, mental anguish, outrage, and indignation."
    Nope. Not even close.
    --
    Reduce, reuse, cycle
    1. Re:Stupidest lawsuit in history? by Jaywalk · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah, there are a lot of idiot lawsuits out there. But how many have gone on for four years, cost this kind of money and involved this many people? SCO sent threatening letters went to 1500 companies, sued two of their own clients and three of their former business partners. And, as is becoming increasingly clear, they really didn't have any real evidence to start with.

      Maybe you could find a suit based on a stupider premise, but I don't think anyone can beat SCO for the sheer scale of their stupidity.

      --
      ===== Murphy's Law is recursive. =====
  6. IANAL, but surely.... by jimicus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    1. Are you legally obliged to make it easy for someone to subpoena you? eg. by replying to an email asking for that information.
    2. Is it a particularly good idea to email an address on a website which may or may not go to the correct person asking "Hey, where do you live, we want to serve legal documents on you"?

    1. Re:IANAL, but surely.... by LizardKing · · Score: 5, Funny

      IANAL (I do have most of a Paralegal degree, sans only Ethics.)

      I gather that the difference between a Paralegal degree and a Lawyer one is that there isn't an Ethics course in the latter.

    2. Re:IANAL, but surely.... by UnknowingFool · · Score: 5, Informative

      The first assumption here is that SCO has honestly tried to serve PJ with a competent subpoena. From what I remember about SCO and subpoenas, they have consistently delivered them to the wrong address (Chrysler), to the wrong people (Intel), had technical defects (Intel, Oracle), had procedural defects (Oracle, Intel, the Open Group), and with inadequate notice (Intel, Oracle, the Open Group).

      When the subpoenaed Chrysler, they sent it Chrysler's old corporate HQ which they moved out of years earlier. SCO sent a subpoena to Intel's legal department even though Intel had told them that they retained outside counsel for these matters, and SCO had worked with that outside counsel 45 days earlier. They send Oracle and Intel subpoenas for depositions without listing what topics to depose and wanted to take the depositions (in NY) 2000 miles from Intel's HQ (in CA). In CA where the OpenGroup, Oracle, and Intel are located, you are not allowed to drop a subpoena demanding a deposition and expect to be followed. According to rules, there must be a meet and confer with the other party (especially if they are third party to a lawsuit) to arrange these matters. When some of the procedural and technical defects were finally resolved, all three were given less than 24 notice to appear to testify about a broad number of subjects. Intel specifically objected noting that the depostion would require the appearance of 6-8 people and about a month of preparation to gather all the required documents.

      With SCO it has always been about tricks and delay.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  7. More Trouble by BCW2 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Now PJ can file a civil claim and try to get what little is left of SCO. Better yet use discovery to find the individuals who have done this and file against them personally. Slander is possible. They have made a concerted effort to discredit her in the press and since their claims are all false it will be easy to prove. Don't sue a worthless shell, get the jerks and lighten their wallets, that will end this farce the quickest.

    --
    Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
  8. Fairly transparent what their strategy will be by Zocalo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Clearly Groklaw is the biggest of the many sites that go over the minutae of the various SCO lawsuits, so they are probably quite correct in their assertion that it's materially impacting their business - and proves that you do indeed reap what you sow. So, SCO drags PJ into the lawsuit, probably knowing full well that it's almost certainly not going to get them anywhere legally, but that it will buy them yet more delays, something they really seem to like. IANAL, but from what I understand of US law free speech does not extend to those involved in a legal case being able to comment on that case, and that surely has to be the real goal here. By getting PJ involved in the case and getting really, *really* lucky, they might be able to effectively gag Groklaw, or at least limit what they can and cannot post.

    Personally, I think getting someone with a detailed knowledge of the case, a legal background, additional protections through being a journalist and despises you and your company onto the witness stand is not a smart move, but then I think SCO & BSF have already proven beyond reasonable doubt that they are not smart. Desperate maybe, but not smart.

    --
    UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
  9. Re:SCO still exists? Simple by neongenesis · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Micro$oft has both purchased a very large license for undisclosed Unix IP (can't they get anything that they need from BSD?) and has been implicated at least a little bit in under-the-table assurances to places like Baystar that their "investment" in SCO will be covered when it is lost.

    It has probably been worth a great deal to spread IP FUD about Linux until Vista gets up and going. Do you think that they have gotten their money's worth in funding TSCOG's long slow suicide?

  10. Funded by Microsoft by alienmole · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's funded by Microsoft. Your Windows dollars at work.

  11. If stock price translates to authority... by dasunst3r · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ... then SCO should be tagged "funny." If you take a look at their stock (SCOX) since 2000, you will notice that they have gone from $94 to a mere $0.89.

  12. Some interesting points by UnknowingFool · · Score: 5, Informative

    According to everything I've read, SCO wants to depose PJ for the Novell case not the IBM case. But they also want to include the deposition in the IBM once it is done. All depositions in the IBM case should have been done by now. They are trying to do an end-around the rules.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  13. Re:PJ spouting hyperbole by dschuetz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Agreed. Surely she could get in touch with them, right? Presumably she has nothing to hide, and could easily let SCO know "here I am, stop this nonsense".

    True, but until they actually reach her with a subpoena, she's not under any legal requirement to do so. Hearing about a subpoena in the news (or via a motion she's retrieved from the internet) isn't nearly the same thing as actually being served. And if she's not actively dodging it (for example, if she's honestly taking a long-planned vacation somewhere and prefers to keep the destination private), then that's just SCO's tough luck.

    I mean, really, why make it easy for SCO?

    On a slightly different point, was it just me, or did this motion sound really whiny, even considering the history of this case?

  14. You obviously haven't been following the case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    SCO has been making accusations against PJ for a long time. They have previously tried to find her and on one occasion they 'outed' her, identifying her as a sixty year old Mormon with a son in New York city. If they can find her and serve her then she will have to pay big lawyer bills with no hope of recovering them because SCO is going bankrupt anyway.

    These people have demonstrated time and time again how nasty they are. They have zero respect for the truth and there is an excellent chance that some of them are going to jail when this is over.

    PJ has nothing to do with the case other than hosting the website that destroyed the FUD value of SCO's criminally frivolous lawsuits. Any evidence she gives will have no bearing on the outcome of the cases. They are just after her to harass her. She's not being shrill and paranoid, she's being realistic.

  15. All Slashdot-ers with initials PJ.... by Fysiks+Wurks · · Score: 5, Funny

    Email SCO with your message " I AM P.J!"

    For authenticity you should be wearing your Spartacus gladiator arm shield or Roman slave tunic while typing.

    --
    P226
  16. Re:PJ spouting hyperbole by hey! · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Hyperbole, yes. But she's making an important point.

    Lawyers and cops play special roles in our society. Those roles require they have powers which, if abused, could make our lives living hells. And bad as a rogue cop can be, short of killing you there's nothing he can do to you that's worse than what a rogue lawyer can do. Maybe they don't put a bullet in your head, but they can take the roof from over your head, the food off of your table, and medicine out of your medicine cabinet. For some people, people who have a responsibility to provide for others, a bullet in the head would be preferable.

    So we rightly expect that cops and lawyers display a high degree of responsibility when it comes to the integrity of the system. To be a decent cop, I suppose you just need common sense, but a lawyer's ethics are much trickier because he's supposed to be a vigorous advocate for his client. The problem with abusive SLAPP lawsuits and even the use of empty legal threats is that they divide society into two classes: people with the resources to defend themselves and people who do not.

    Does anybody have a duty to respect and cooperate with a system which unjustly oppresses them? Should we give power to people who will use it to wrong us for their clients' benefits? If we do, we'll end up with a two track system of justice in which one class of people can use the legal system to compel any behavior they wish from the other.

    SLAPP suits and baseless legal extortion undermine the legitimacy of the system. The system should come down hard on lawyers who practice this kind of law. Not only should they be disbarred, they should be sent to jail to do hard time. We'd strip a cop of his badge and send him to jail if he was shaking down shopkeepers. I'd rather pay protection money to a cop than let a bad lawyer get his hooks into me.

    Let me be clear that I don't hate lawyers. I admire the profession, and technical skills of it practitioners. But they have a higher duty of public ethics than a day laborer or cab driver, and when they breech that duty the damage they cause is unthinkable.

    This by the way is why we should be concerned about the dismissal of David Iglesias. It is true that Mr. Iglesias served at the pleasure of the President; but the President has no more right to single out his political enemies for prosecution than he has to single out his friends to receive federal contracts. Mr. Iglesias, and indeed the President, have a duty to support and defend the Constitution, and the integrity of the legal system. As bad as the potential for abuse is for an ordinary lawyer, a prosecutor has the power to drop an unbearable burden of suspicion on anybody he choses. That power should only be exercised in the public interest.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  17. Re:Truth, Justice, and the American way by lenski · · Score: 5, Insightful

    PJ has been flawlessly consistent in her trust in the U.S. legal system. She says that it can produce imperfect results, as can any human-created system, but it has a strong tendency to work in the right direction.

    In the SCO case, PJ has in her own inimitable way, contributed to this case going the right way: She brings the actinic glare of illumination onto a process that SCO, and others, have tried to accomplish.

    PJ started her blog several months before the SCO case became public knowledge, in order to connect geeks with legal concepts. She believed then and still believes that we (the technologists) should be aware of the rules of the game in order avoid being steamrolled by it.

    I've been reading the blog since early 2003, and PJ sounds like a gentle spoken (she insists on decorum) but very very intelligent paralegal. The truth justice and the American way language is backed up by consistent and finely honed research and argument. Plus one additional ingredient, a very angry hornet's nest: 10,000+ pissed off developers, some of whom have been around from the inception of UNIX and derived technologies. PJ, more than anything else, has brought us together to face the threat from SCO and folks like them, and for that alone her contribution is inestimable.

  18. Re:But Darl's got a gun. by sconeu · · Score: 5, Funny

    Why don't we just send Roland the Headless Thompson Gunner after him?

    (and to the mod trolls, no it's not off-topic, reread the parent).

    --
    General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
  19. Re:2 people connected to the scox-scam killed alre by The+Darkness · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It was probably a side effect of the new moderation system. You used to click a "moderate to this" dropdown box and then click "submit" to moderate. With the new comment system it's javascript based so as soon as you select a moderation it is applied. I'm sure I'm not the only person to accidentally moderate a post to the wrong thing.

    --
    There are two kinds of people: 1) those that need closure