|
O'Gara Wishes to Prove SCO's Case, Or Something |
|
Tuesday, November 30 2004 @ 09:44 PM EST
|
Here's the headline Maureen O'Gara chose:
CSN Asks Judge To Unseal the SCO-IBM Court Record
If SCO's Case Proved, It Could Derail The Linux Market and Take The Open Source Movement Down With It No hostility there. Maybe a little around the edges, oozing out? Leapin' Lizards, Batman, the heroine action figure who apparently wishes to Take the Open Source Movement Down singlehandedly is none other than Maureen O'Gara, who is asking the Utah court to unseal all the sealed records: "Client Server News and LinuxGram, its sister publication, have asked the Utah district court hearing the SCO Group's $5 billion suit against IBM and IBM's subsequent counterclaims to open all the filings that have been sealed. SCO's suit claims IBM improperly incorporated aspects of SCO's Unix operating system in Linux. If proved, it could derail the Linux market and take the open source movement down with it." I am glad she spells that out for the judge, so he realizes that he has a chance to destroy an entire segment of the IT industry should he choose to go along with the plot. O'Gara is the editor of both CSN and LinuxGram, so I think the paragraph could have said, Maureen O'Gara has asked the court to unseal the records. I guess there will be no further pretense of editorial neutrality on her part. Naturally, I am of two minds. One, I hope she wins and some things at least get unsealed, because I'm crazy wild to read everything. But on the other hand, the court and the parties wouldn't seal things without a reason that seems good to them. I believe in privacy, personally, and I don't think the public has a "right" to know everything. Just because you get sued by some litigious company or individual, it doesn't mean you now belong to the public, hook, line and sinker. Well, I don't need to worry about it. That's what judges are for.
O'Gara believes the public can't understand the case, because of the sealing, which might explain at least some of her articles: "However, the public has lost any real insight into the case because of a so-called stipulated protective order that SCO and IBM signed in September of 2003 that has let either of them unilaterally designate discovery material as 'confidential.'" Speak for yourself. We're following along mighty fine on this side of the Great Divide. Our insight is that SCO is losing. Is that the problem? O'Gara has it in her head that it is IBM sealing things predominantly:
"As a result, a large part of the case has been sealed, especially the substantive and material parts.
"IBM is believed to have been particularly free with the seal." Who believes that? SCO? I don't, because I like to base my beliefs on actual facts. If you feel the same way, why not peruse the Pacer SCO v. IBM History, and let's count who is sealing what, and you'll see it's a dead heat, with SCO filing one more sealed document than IBM: -
#191-1 -- SCO sealed Exhibits G, H, I and J to Memorandum in Support of their Renewed Motion to Compel -- 7/06/04
- #197-1 -- SCO sealed Declaration in Support of its Opposition to IBM's Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Declaration and Exhibits filed under seal. 7/09/04
-
#198-1 -- SCO sealed Declarations in Support of SCO's Motion for Continuance Pursuant to Rule 56(f). Declarations and exhibits filed under seal. 7/08/04
-
#203-1 -- SCO sealed Declaration of Chris Sontag in Support of Reply Memorandum Re Discovery. 7/12/04
-
#206-1 -- SCO sealed Exhibits RE: its Opposition Memorandum. Vols. 1-5. All exhibits are oversized and placed on the shelf in an expandable folder next to the case file with the exception of vol. 5. Vol 5 is SEALED and placed in the sealed file room. 7/09/04
-
#245-1 -- SCO sealed Ex Parte Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Memo RE: Discovery. 8/19/04.
-
#269-1 -- SCO sealed Reply to Ex Parte Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Memo RE: Discovery. 9/03/04.
-
#0-0 -- SCO sealed Proposed Memorandum in Support of Expedited Motion to Enforce. 9/08/04.
-
#287-1 - SCO sealed Supplemental Memorandum Regarding Discovery. 8/19/04, entered 9/13/04.
-
#288-1 - SCO sealed Declaration of Jeremey O. Evans.
-
#289-1 - SCO sealed Declaration of Barbara L. Howe. 8/19/04, entered 9/13/04.
-
#290-1 -- SCO sealed Memorandum in Support of SCO's Expedited Motion to Enforce the Court's Amended Scheduling Order dated June 10, 2004. 9/08/04. However it filed a redacted memorandum, #291-1. 9/09/04.
-
#292-1 -- SCO sealed Exhibits, 3 volumes, RE: expedited motion to enforce scheduling order. 9/09/04.
-
#293-1 -- SCO sealed Exhibits to Memorandum in Support of Expedited Motion to Enforce. 9/09/04.
-
#307-1 -- SCO sealed Consolidated Reply Memorandum in Further Support of Expedited Motion to Enforce Court's Amended Scheduling Order and Emergency Motion for a Scheduling Conference. 9/24/04. However, it did file a redacted version, #308-1.
-
#316-1 -- SCO sealed Reply brief RE: Sealed Supplemental Memorandum RE: Discovery. 10/04/04.
-
#317-1 -- SCO sealed Declaration of Jeremy O. Evans. 10/04/04.
-
#323-1 -- SCO sealed Memorandum in support of Motion to Amend Complaint.10/14/04.
That's 18 for SCO. And here is the list of items sealed by IBM: -
#220-1 -- IBM sealed Exhibits to Declaration of Amy F. Sorenson. 8/04/04
-
#230-1 -- IBM sealed Memorandum in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Breach of Contract Claims. 8/16/04. However, it filed a Redacted Memorandum, #232-1.
-
#234-1 -- IBM sealed Exhibits to Declaration of Todd M. Shaughnessy in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Breach of Contract Claims. 8/13/04.
-
#239-1 -- IBM sealed exhibits to Declaration of Amy Sorenson. 8/16/04.
-
#241-1 -- IBM sealed Memorandum in Support of IBM's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on its Counterclaim for Copyright Infringement. 8/16/04. However, it filed a Redacted Memorandum, #231-1 and an Addendum, #244-1.
-
#243-1 -- IBM sealed 9 boxes of exhibits, attached to Declaration of Amy Sorenson. 243-1.
-
#251-1 -- IBM sealed Exhibits RE: Reply Declaration of Todd M. Shaughnessy. 8/23/04.
-
252-1 -- IBM sealed Declaration of Brian W. Kernighan. Filed under seal and placed in sealed room.
-
#257-1 -- IBM sealed Reply to SCO's Cross Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Claim for Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement. Document placed in sealed room. 8/24/04.
-
#271-1 -- IBM sealed Memorandum in Support of Motion to Strike the 7/12/04 Declaration of Christopher Sontag. 9/07/04.
-
#304-1 -- IBM sealed Opposition to SCO's Supplemental Memorandum Re Discovery. 9/24/04.
-
#305-1 -- IBM sealed Declaration of Ron Saint Pierre. 9/24/04.
-
#306-1 -- IBM sealed Declaration of David Bullis. 9/24/04.
-
#331-1 -- IBM sealed Declaration of Alec S. Berman. 11/19/04.
-
#332-1 -- IBM sealed Declaration of Irving Wladawsky-Berger. 11/19/04.
-
#333-1 -- IBM sealed Declaration of Samuel J. Palmisano. 11/19/04.
-
#334-1 -- IBM sealed Declaration of Andrew Bonzani. 11/19/04.
That's 17 for IBM. And some of their sealings are because SCO sealed a document that they are responding to. #304, for example. Don't journalists check their facts any more before they write biased articles? 18 for SCO and 17 for IBM, and she says IBM "is believed" to have been particularly "free with the seal"? In addition, Judge Wells has sealed an Ex Parte Order, dated 9/03/04 and entered 9/08/04, #270-1, granting SCO's sealed Ex Parte Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Memo Re: Discovery (#245-1). And she sealed #328-2, the transcript of the 10/19/04 hearing. That is the one when SCO "accidentally" spilled some beans. I'm guessing this is the scab she would like to pick, so that whatever that information is, it gets good and spilled once and for all and totally. I don't view that as a lofty First Amendment goal, myself. It looks to me more like wanting to fight SCO's battles by proxy. I think it's SCO that wants that material revealed, so the public can have "insight" into the case in a way they think will be helpful to them in their PR. Anyway, she is asking that all the transcripts be opened. She doesn't know it, evidently, but there is only one that is sealed. And she wants both sides, ha ha, to prove they really, really need to seal something, because the public has a right to know: "Our motion to intervene contends that the protective order, usually reserved for trade secrets whose disclosure could be competitively damaging, may have been abused and that the material that has been put under seal has never been shown to be really confidential."It argues that merely protecting potentially embarrassing information that the parties 'do not want the public to see' violates the public's common law right of access to judicial records and its First Amendment right to oversee the judicial system." Our right to "oversee" the judicial system? Um. No. Judges do that. I think that part will go over like a lead balloon. Maybe O'Gara misquoted her lawyers. She probably meant "monitor". You might like to read up on the law on the public's access to case files. Here is a snip: "Several courts of appeals have held that the common law presumption attaches to the broad array of filed documents. See, e.g., Pansy v. Borough of Stroudsburg, 23 F.3d 772, 782 (3rd Cir. 1994) (holding that a settlement agreement that was not filed with the court is not a judicial record accessible under the common law doctrine) . . . .
There is some tension, however, among the courts of appeals with respect to whether the presumption of access attaches to all filed documents, or only to filed documents that the court relies on to make certain substantive decisions. The Second Circuit, in United States v. Amodeo, 44 F.3d at 145, summarized that approach:
We think that the mere filing of a paper or document with the court is insufficient to render that paper a judicial document subject to the right of public access. We think that the item filed must be relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process in order for it to be designated a judicial document.
"The First and D.C. Circuits have articulated a similar approach to the common law right. See Anderson v. Cryovac, Inc., 805 F.2d 1, 12-13 (1st Cir. 1986) (applying the common law right only to 'materials on which a court relies in determining the litigants' substantive rights') . . . .
"There is not yet a definitive Supreme Court ruling on whether there is a First Amendment right of access to court documents (in addition to the common law right discussed above). Nonetheless, several courts of appeals have extended the scope of Richmond Newspapers to grant a limited First Amendment right to various types of judicial records, both criminal and civil. See, e.g., In re Continental Illinois Securities Litigation, 732 F.2d 1302 (7th Cir. 1984) (extending First Amendment access right to a 'special litigation report' filed in support of a motion to dismiss a shareholder derivative suit); and Publicker Industries v. Cohen, 733 F.2d 1059, 1067-70 (3d Cir. 1984) (holding that the reasons supporting a First Amendment right of access to criminal proceedings apply with equal force to civil trials and case file documents). The Tenth Circuit, however, declined to decide whether there is a First Amendment right to judicial documents, noting the lack of explicit Supreme Court holdings on the issue since Press Enterprise II. See United States v. McVeigh, 119 F.3d 806 (10th Cir. 1997) (denying press requests for access to sealed documents in Oklahoma City bombing trial).
"B. Privacy-based limits on access
"Despite the legal presumption that judicial records are open for public inspection, it is equally clear that access rights are not absolute. The Supreme Court in Nixon v. Warner Communications observed that:
[E]very court has supervisory power over its own records and files, and access has been denied where court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes.
435 U.S. at 596.
"The decision to deny public access involves a balance between the presumption in favor of access, on the one hand, and the privacy or other interests that may justify restricting access. These interests include the possibility of prejudicial pretrial publicity, the danger of impairing law enforcement or judicial efficiency, and the privacy interests of litigants or third parties. See United States v. McVeigh, 119 F.3d 806, 811 (10th Cir. 1997); United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d. 1044, 1047-50 (2d Cir. 1995). . . .
"In weighing the public interest in releasing personal information against the privacy interests of individuals, the Court defined the public's interest as 'shedding light on the conduct of any Government agency or official,' 489 U.S. at 773, rather than acquiring information about a particular private citizen. The Court also noted 'the fact that an event is not wholly private does not mean that an individual has no interest in limiting disclosure or dissemination of the information.'" 489 U.S. at 770. If Ms. O'Gara would like to send me her legal filing, I'm happy to publish it in full for her. Or we can wait until Pacer has it. So, there you have it. Oh, and her lawyers are named Jones, Waldo, Holbrook & McDonough. I like to think she picked them because she's always been partial to the name Jones.
|
|
Authored by: jbb on Tuesday, November 30 2004 @ 11:52 PM EST |
To make them easy to find.
---
SCO cannot violate the covenants that led to and underlie Linux without
forfeiting the benefits those covenants confer.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: psgj on Tuesday, November 30 2004 @ 11:54 PM EST |
Patrick "OT" Jacobs [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- OT ECT writers. - Authored by: Brian S. on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 12:28 AM EST
- HP UNIX = BSD ?? - Authored by: Night Flyer on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 12:38 AM EST
- This can be taken two ways.... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 12:40 AM EST
- Am I missing something? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 12:45 AM EST
- VNUNET : SCO SELLS LINUX LICENSES IN UK - Authored by: nvanevski on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 03:16 AM EST
- Thanks PJ - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 03:16 AM EST
- "SCO Official position" comment - Authored by: cheros on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 03:16 AM EST
- Open Source != Linux - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 03:30 AM EST
- UK IP Lawyer Slams Torvalds - Authored by: muswell100 on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 04:24 AM EST
- "No no no, Linus has got it all wrong in his stance against software patents!" - Authored by: Hydra on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 04:53 AM EST
- Getting really tired of "The SCO Group" Position thread - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 08:33 AM EST
- OT: Ah, so that's where Waldo is! - Authored by: darthaggie on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 09:07 AM EST
- Linux Slashes Cost for Bank Giant. - Authored by: sproggit on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 09:33 AM EST
- AdTI: Ready for Round Three with Open Sourcers - Authored by: thinman on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 09:46 AM EST
- Journalism - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 10:13 AM EST
- Amazon donations still broken - Authored by: jbb on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 11:58 AM EST
- Patch Posted to GeekLog - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 12:02 PM EST
- Effortless Attribution Retention Patch Posted - Authored by: rjamestaylor on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 01:19 PM EST
- SCO Filings from Nov30? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 01:26 PM EST
- IE 6 doing weird stuff with groklaw - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 02:14 PM EST
- World economy imperiled! - Authored by: swengr on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 06:08 PM EST
- Off Topic Stuff Here - procedural question - Authored by: tbogart on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 08:55 PM EST
- O'Gara's posts - nasty stuff - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 02 2004 @ 12:33 AM EST
- Some commentary from the past on Ms. O'Gara - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 02 2004 @ 11:31 AM EST
|
Authored by: AllParadox on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 12:05 AM EST |
Main posts in this thread may only be made by senior managers or attorneys for
"The SCO Group". Main posts must use the name and position of the
poster at "The SCO Group". Main posters must post in their official
capacity at "The SCO Group".
Sub-posts will also be allowed from non-"The SCO Group" employees or
attorneys. Sub-posts from persons not connected with "The SCO Group"
must be very polite, address other posters and the main poster with the
honorific "Mr." or "Mrs." or "Ms.", as
appropriate, use correct surnames, not call names or suggest or imply unethical
or illegal conduct by "The SCO Group" or its employees or attorneys.
This thread requires an extremely high standard of conduct and even slightly
marginal posts will be deleted.
P.J. says you must be on your very best behavior.
If you want to comment on this thread, please post under the off-topic thread,
"OT", found above.
---
All is paradox: I no longer practice law, so this is just another layman's
opinion. For a Real Legal Opinion, buy one from a licensed Attorney[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Latesigner on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 12:07 AM EST |
she's still employed. She can't fire hereself.
It also looks like one set of fraudulent lawsuits begets still others.
How long do you think it will take the judge to decide that this suit is
"meritless"?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 12:15 AM EST |
Some people really seem to enjoy self-aggrandizement. I'll not say everyone
touting something at least partly pro-SCO is a tool, but this one in particular
has been for a long time.
As for fact checking, I think most real journalism has gone the way of the dodo.
If it sells ("collects page impressions"), then it must be good. No
one bothers to get both sides, and the best you're likely to see is a
disclaimer: "So-and-so failed to respond before press time." What you
won't see is "I called the first number I found about 10 minutes before
this article was due. No one answered."
Too lazy to login, but.. whither the various things under consideration in
Utah?
It's been a long time of... silence.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 12:16 AM EST |
"First Amendment right to oversee the judicial system"
What part of the first amendment has anything to do with the judicial branch of
the government? That part is handled in the Constitution, not the Bill of
Rights. Ms. O'Gara needs to get her quotes right.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: kcassidy on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 12:19 AM EST |
I read through the whole article and I have a few issues, but that could be
due to my anal-ness with spelling and grammar, as well as some of what she is
saying.
Our lawyers, Jones, Waldo, Holbrook & McDonough, a
Salt Lake City firm experienced in First Amendment matters, is prepared
to argue our case in court.
As a magazine editor, maybe she
should proofread her own material? Or maybe hire someone since she runs a
magazine? That sentence irks me. End the grammar rant.
This is stated in
the article:
Our motion to intervene contends that the
protective order, usually reserved for trade secrets whose disclosure could be
competitively damaging, may have been abused and that the material that has been
put under seal has never been shown to be really
confidential.
How does she know that they aren't trade secrets?
Is not some communication within a corporation deemed to be private to the
company and open only when such information will not violate a trade secret or
potentially proprietary information? She also asks for discovery items which
include all active versions of AIX which IBM sells, which therefore then
makes it proprietary, does it not?
Although not a US citizen, this
ultimately will effect the entire world as the open source movement is not
limited to the United States. I am curious, though.. there are various projects
on open source sites that are for Windows and other operating systems, as well
as Linux projects that have nothing to do with the kernel.. how will this entire
movement be affected by Linux potentially being deemed an infringement of
copyright?
Would not a better motion be to not automatically make all
documents sealed as may be the case, but instead to have the judge make a ruling
as to what is permissible to be sealed and what is not, and clarify this for
everyone? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- O'Gara Grammar Gaffe Groked - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 12:27 AM EST
- Grammar Nazi - Authored by: JScarry on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 12:40 AM EST
- Grammar Nazi - Authored by: DrHow on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 01:30 PM EST
- Grammar Nazi - Authored by: alisonken1 on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 02:03 PM EST
- Grammar Nazi - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 02:20 PM EST
- Grammar Nazi - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 06:18 PM EST
- Grammar Nazi? - Authored by: cbc on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 08:58 PM EST
- Grammar Nazi? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 02 2004 @ 12:11 AM EST
- How _would_ she know? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 02:14 AM EST
- O'Gara Wishes to Prove SCO's Case, Or Something - Authored by: Steve Martin on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 08:09 AM EST
- O'Gara Wishes to Prove SCO's Case, Or Something - Authored by: jbeadle on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 11:27 AM EST
- O'Gara Wishes to Prove SCO's Case, Or Something - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 11:28 AM EST
- What arrogance! - Authored by: tiger99 on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 01:35 PM EST
- O'Gara Wishes to Prove SCO's Case, Or Something - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 06:16 PM EST
- O'Gara Wishes to Prove SCO's Case, Or Something - Authored by: John Hasler on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 08:01 PM EST
|
Authored by: smoot on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 12:21 AM EST |
Sounds like Ms O'Gara is just trying to generate some publicity for herself. I
doubt if the judge will be very happy about this development. After all this is
just a contract dispute between two private parties and I am curious what she
claims her standing is in this case to even file such a brief.
As to her headline about "taking Open Source down", I seem to recall
Open Source is more than just Linux. So even if SCO won (which I very much
doubt), Open Source software would continue on.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 12:21 AM EST |
"Since launching Client Server NEWS, she has
stalked the aisles of
the trade shows with a vengeance,
leaving a trail of shaking, sweating VPs of
many a computer
company.
She haunts the corridors of the Microsoft
powerbase and
gives Client Server NEWS some of its sharp edge. Famous for
her confrontational style in press conferences she is
single-handedly the
reason why most companies in the sector
have abandoned having press
conferences."
"stalked" "haunted" "confrontational style"
hmmm... I
am beginning to get a very clear and very unpleasant
picture of
this ..... person. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: ujay on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 12:24 AM EST |
It appears to me that SCO wanted the DC case stayed so they could end run the
Delaware Judge, and relitigate DC on infringement if the possibility existed
that the IBM case would settle that way. Some of their pleadings seemed to
imply that.
Now we have Ms. SCO'Gara attempting to look like a legitimate journalistic
request, (which I'm sure the judge would give all the merit it deserves).
SCO wants more FUD material, but I think they are reluctant to approach the
Judge themselves and simply ask to unseal their submissions.
Do the SCO and MO travelling road show think that PJ is the source of all their
bad PR, and not their own actions and statements?
As an IT pro, SCO lost all credibility with me almost 2 years ago. MO also lost
any semblance of credibility due to her own lack of investigative effort. All
either have left is the last refuge of the incompetent -- attack, obscure,
misdirect, and hope noone is watching.
This issue has been reduced exponentially from incredible, to inconvenient, to
incompetent, followed by ludicrous, and now simply pathetic. I'm sure SCO and
MO know the difference between a live horse and a dead horse, but neither seem
to have the ability to cease flogging the latter.
---
Windows User: HNV82-29936 BotNet Node: 1287345[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: AllParadox on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 12:30 AM EST |
Judges have an exasperating habit of dividing the baby down the middle, so that
they may consider themselves judicial and Solomonic. The inconvenient fact that
this is almost always the best answer is a poor excuse.
So far, the parties, by agreement, have sealed anything anybody wanted, without
inquiring into validity of motives.
A proper strategy depends upon the judge, and it pays to know the judge's
habits. Some judges think that both sides should give a little in this kind of
arm-wrestling match. When before such a judge, always throw in an extra 5-10%
that is not really worthy of being sealed, in anticipation of an applied
resolution. You will look like a sage hero to the court when you voluntarily
agree to match the stuff the other side is forced to open up.
That approach is not appropriate for a fact-based judge. Fact-based judges
could care less about which side gives up what and what the proportions are.
The 10% hedge that is appropriate for the "peace-maker" above, is
offensive to the fact-based judge. If you do that to him, he will think you are
gaming him, which you are.
The above analysis of judicial approaches is only valid if you are trying to
persuade the judge. Given TSG's other presentatations, I am personally quite
doubtful that they were ever motivated by the judge's consideration.
Therefore, it is quite likely that the IBM attorneys have requested to seal only
those documents that they really believed they had a privelege to seal, merely
as a matter of professionalism.
I suspect that the TSG attorneys have sealed many of their documents based on
how it would look in the press, and whether they could keep the documents from
being microscopically analysed by Groklaw.
I do so hope that O'Gara's motion is granted, to the extent that the court will
decide for itself which documents pass muster.
Like everything else they try, this could easily wind up blowing up in their
faces.
---
All is paradox: I no longer practice law, so this is just another layman's
opinion. For a Real Legal Opinion, buy one from a licensed Attorney[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 12:30 AM EST |
"...its First Amendment right to oversee the judicial
system.
Huh? Maybe I'm missing something here, but I don't
quite see where the first amendment makes any mentions of the judicial system or
the oversight thereof by the people.
Of course, it's a typical
strategy: if you don't have any arguments to back up your opinion, just appeal
to the emotions of the uninformed. Whether it's "this violates the first
amendment", or "by doing that you're supporting terrorism", or "think of the
children", it's always the same thing.
But of course, this is hardly
surprising.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 12:56 AM EST |
Let's take a moment to review some events over the last few months
1. First we get Darl McBride, during a teleconference, talking about how the
sealed documents would reveal that IBM had big problems. This was towards the
end of the teleconference when he was questioned by a UK journalist (I forget
his name) about why they hadn't revealed any evidence. Darl finished this
teleconference with the quote "big blue has big problems" (you'll find
it google)
2. Then we get a press article, I think on LinuxWorld, perhaps even by Ms O'Gara
(I don't remember) saying that SCO intended to file motions to unseal the
record
3. Then we the Wells hearing. SCO knew the IBM materials were conidential,
because they presented the slides only to the magistrates view. Nevertheless
they read the aloud in court. When instructed not to, they continued to read
them aloud. This doesn't look like an accident, more like "accidentally on
purpose". It's almost as if in their minds their unseal motion had been
filed and granted, even though in fact they never got around to filing it.
4. Now this from Ms O'Gara
Now you might want to speculate, conjecturize, opine (in your mind rather than
in a reply please) about whether these events might be connected.
As to replies, if anybody cares to fill in missing details,provide URLs to any
of the above, correct any errors in the history above, etc.... I think that
might a little more useful than putting in writing what are perhaps the obvious
(but unproven) conjectures as to the possible connections.
Quatermass
IANAL IMHO etc
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- See my post below, it's about 5 down (n/t) - Authored by: fudisbad on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 01:07 AM EST
- Speculation, conjecture, and opinion - Authored by: markpmc on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 11:26 AM EST
- I may have been reading Groklaw too long... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 11:45 AM EST
- It's all about PR spin... (N/T) - Authored by: jbeadle on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 11:46 AM EST
- Speculation, conjecture, and opinion - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 12:07 PM EST
|
Authored by: XORisOK on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 12:59 AM EST |
"Client Server News and LinuxGram, its sister publication, have asked the
Utah district court hearing the SCO Group's $5 billion suit against IBM and
IBM's subsequent counterclaims to open all the filings that have been sealed.
SCO's suit claims IBM improperly incorporated aspects of SCO's Unix operating
system in Linux. If proved, it could derail the Linux market and take the open
source movement down with it."
Does this shill not understand yet that the "improper incorporation"
issue has been dropped - and it is now a "Contract issue"?
I have a great idea: (PJ - are you here?) LET'S UN-SEAL EVERYTHING, AND GET
THE TRUTH OUT ON THE TABLE.... The truth may make all of the players in this
facade SHUT UP and go away :^)
---
I can't help it if you insist on using logic![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jim Reiter on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 01:01 AM EST |
Is there a real story here?
MO is a nobody trying to horn in on some publicity in
order to puff up an otherwise undistinguished career.
Why are you even talking about her? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: fudisbad on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 01:05 AM EST |
She said that SCO were going to request the unsealing of some
documents. Here's a
link.
Maureen O'Gara believes that SCO intends to charge IBM with
fraud. What SCO and its legal A team of Boies and Silver want aired are IBM's
e-mails, which they think tell a killer story about AIX, Dynix, and Project
Monterey. According to O'Gara SCO wants the world to start seeing the case
the way SCO sees it and are going to file a motion asking the court to unseal
most of the documents that are currently under seal. What it wants
aired...
Hmmmmmmm... Sounds like a direct
link.
--- FUD is not the answer.
FUD is the question.
The truth is the answer. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 01:05 AM EST |
I exchanged some email with Ms O'Gara right after her article quoting a exchange
at the bar in the most recent SCO v. IBM hearing. You know, the quote that
nobody else heard, that shows that IBM couldn't seem to find the AIX-on-Power
version of UNIX. The transcript was sealed, of course, so it is impossible for
outsiders to tell what really happened.
I suggested to Ms O'Gara that she work to get the seal lifted, as a way to show
the world that she spoke the truth. I don't know if she was already planning to
do that, but she said that asking the judge to unseal the transcript was
something she intended to do. In any case, it appears that she has been working
toward this since late October when we had our email exchange. Not too
surprisingly, O'Gara also related that most of the mail she received was
vituperative at best, and threatening at worst. I just don't see any point in
that.
In this instance, I hope that she succeeds in getting the transcripts (even in a
redacted form) unsealed. From the reports of Chris Brown and Frank Newsome,
among others, it seemed like an incredibly interesting hearing. In particular,
it seems that IBM's lawyers outdid themselves in their handling of the issues
that day.
As far as exhibits and memoranda, though, I'd really be surprised if any of
those sealed papers will be opened. Compared to a lot of civil business cases,
this one is a model of openness, at least so far. It does appear that almost
all of the papers sealed so far are sealed for good reason.
Thad Beier[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- O'Gara Wishes to Prove SCO's Case, Or Something - Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 01:38 AM EST
- O'Gara Wishes to Prove SCO's Case, Or Something - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 02:57 AM EST
- O'Gara Wishes to Prove SCO's Case, Or Something - Authored by: ak on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 03:10 AM EST
- O'Gara Wishes to Prove SCO's Case, Or Something - Authored by: dwmosman on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 04:01 AM EST
- ..and O'Gara bought it, hook, line, sinker, reel, crank, and both arms. Beautiful. ;-) N/T - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 04:37 AM EST
- And that is the strength of open source. - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 06:18 AM EST
- O'Gara Wishes to Prove SCO's Case, Or Something - Authored by: blacklight on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 06:52 AM EST
- O'Gara Wishes to Prove SCO's Case, Or Something - Authored by: walth on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 10:30 AM EST
- You haven't answered one key question: - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 01:55 PM EST
- Unsealing the transcript.. - Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 09:58 AM EST
- Just one question - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 02:39 AM EST
- Just one question - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 03:01 AM EST
- Just one question - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 03:28 AM EST
|
Authored by: rand on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 01:16 AM EST |
11th Circuit opinion on appeal from the Southern District of Georgia D. C. Docket No.
98-00069-CV-2 (PDF)
or a
Google HTML version
CHICAGO TRIBUNE
COMPANY [and others]
vs BRIDGESTONE/FIRESTONE, INC. ... This is
an appeal of the district court’s order unsealing documents previously filed
pursuant to a protective order entered by stipulation of the
parties. Good background material.--- The wise man is not
embarrassed or angered by lies, only disappointed. (IANAL and so forth and so
on) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: XORisOK on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 01:20 AM EST |
SCO has also finally decided to set up a site of its own to house all the myriad
legal documents the suit has created so people won't have to go to Groklaw and
read its anti-SCO philippics.
Can someone tell me what a "Philippics" is?
---
I can't help it if you insist on using logic![ Reply to This | # ]
|
- O'Gara Wishes to Prove SCO's Case, Or Something - Authored by: NastyGuns on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 01:31 AM EST
- Phillipics - Authored by: digger53 on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 01:47 AM EST
- Phillipics - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 10:05 AM EST
- Phillipics - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 01:45 PM EST
- O'Gara Wishes to Prove SCO's Case, Or Something - Authored by: Fourmyle on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 01:53 AM EST
- O'Gara Wishes to Prove SCO's Case, Or Something - Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 12:28 PM EST
- O'Gara Wishes to Prove SCO's Case, Or Something - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 02:36 PM EST
- OT: XORisOK - Are you planning to patent the XOR operator? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 05:57 PM EST
|
Authored by: digger53 on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 01:36 AM EST |
According to Netcraft, both CSN and LinuxGram run IIS on
Win2000. Surprise, surprise. LinuxGram on IIS? Tsk. Tsk.
Electronic fish-head wrappers, anyone?
Why does O'Gara hate Linux? Is this just another loser who
couldn't install Mandrake? or Linspire? or figure out how
to boot a Knoppix CD? In the immortal words of Albert the
Alligator (in Pogo), "Fazz-Bazz."
G'night, all.
---
When all else fails, follow directions.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 01:38 AM EST |
If you have a closer look at the Statistics of this formidable Linux Businessweek- (thing) it is
quite obvious that whenever PJ is mentioning any of those biased article-
(things) the hit figures will rise sharply.
What kind of business model
is it to run a Linux news site for the professional Linux user and an average of
600 world wide readers is interested in those articles only? My guess would be
that some private edited sites about Linux gaming get substantial more hits than
this business related site.
Ms. O'Gara seems to be playing in the same league
as Ms. DiDido. My friend has a rat- sized dog, who is constantly barking at
everybody who might be capable in moving. Perhaps she can train the dog to bark
at Linux users solely. My guess would be that if we are walking the dog downtown
the dog would have a hit rate similar to the hit rate of this Linuxbusiness
thing.
So let's move on. Nobody is really interested in Ms. O'Garas
expertise.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Jack Hughes on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 01:53 AM EST |
Question for the IAALs:
My impression is that most of the sealed
documents, at
least on the IBM side, are depositions.
My understanding
is that depositions are personal
statements of private individuals.
They are supposed to be
truthful. It may well be the case that they say things
that are detrimental to their employer, for example, which
could well be one
of the litigants. It may be that they
say something that undermines the
position of their
employer and thus adversely affect their position in that
organisation: passed over for promotion, sacked, given the
cold shoulder etc.
So when I saw a stream of depositions being sealed, I
assumed that it is
normal to seal all depositions
as are matter of course - so as not to
flag particular
individuals that may have made statements that may have a
wider impact on their lives outside the scope of the
litigation.
In a
nutshell: My assumption is that depositions are
sealed as a matter of course
to protect "whistleblowers".
Is my assumption right? Is it usual to seal
depositions
in cases of this kind? Or is this case unusual.
Thankyou.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- ..dunno, but TSCOG is in deep enough to wanna shoot whistleblowers. N/T - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 04:29 AM EST
- Depositions, Sealing, Normal? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 05:29 AM EST
- Depositions, Sealing, Normal? - Authored by: marbux on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 07:35 AM EST
- Depositions, Sealing, Normal? Possilby. - Authored by: spuluka on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 08:53 AM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 02:00 AM EST |
"If SCO's Case Proved, It Could Derail The Linux Market
and Take The Open Source Movement Down With It"
The target is IBM. The shooter is Microsoft.
Let's see where O'Gara gets her funding from - follow the money!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Totosplatz on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 02:08 AM EST |
Let's delay, some more, to discuss "un-sealing" everything. Just another
distraction. Bah!
Sounds like somebody, somewhere, is running out of
tactical ideas. Any notion of strategy is long gone. --- All the best
to one and all. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: moosie on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 02:27 AM EST |
PJ, You're awesome! Perhaps, Ms. O'Gara could take a page from your book (or
maybe you could send her one like you already have). I fully think with your
background you should attend law school and protect us from the O'Garas of the
world. I would sleep better if that were the case.
- Moosie.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 02:48 AM EST |
This is another piece of SCO FUD. If SCO wanted the
documents to be unsealed, they would ask the judge to
unseal it. Why is a so called "analyst" - one closely
associated with SCO's media circus, but otherwise
unconnected with the lawsuit - asking the Judge? The
answer is simply - because the Judge will only listen to
such requests from the litigants. In short SCO don't want
the documents unsealed, they just want to put out the
false appearance that IBM is hiding something, and that is
what O'Gara is doing on their behalf.
SCO has run out of any facts to even vaguely support their
case - the facts all disprove SCO's case, and all SCO's
media circus can rely on now is innuendo that something
that the court has ruled should be keep confidential is
hiding something. Well the court knows what is in the
documents, so it is not going to affect the lawsuit.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: kawabago on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 02:57 AM EST |
To pump up her own numbers. Funny, even SCO's FUD machine can't make it without
Groklaw!
---
constructive irrelevance.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 04:36 AM EST |
...that she has been sold a pig in a poke by SCO and now wants to see what is
what.
I like to be charitable.
Darl should remember "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned". If he
has made a fool of MOG he may have to watch out.
--
Jaydee not logged in[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Jude on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 05:29 AM EST |
Yes indeed. And surely it must, because we all know that Ms. O'Gara is a fine
upstanding journalist who would never publish a story about filing such a
document unless she really did it.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: odysseus on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 06:24 AM EST |
MOG doing SCO's work for them? Or will SCO be mortified
that MOG is doing what they only dared to FUD about? I
can't seem to decide. QM as always makes some good points
above about the timing, and Thad covers some nice ground
on the "value" of MOG.
But I don't think I buy the Conspiracy Theory of SCO's
lawyers setting all this up, for a start they don't seem
smart enough, and secondly that would open them to severe
sanctions if they got caught out.
No, I think SCO are this moment trying to find a hole to
hide in and pray like crazy that MOG's motion fails. SCO
does NOT want the transcript or the exhibits unsealed,
because they would be too embarressing to their case and
fatal to their FUDding.
Worse still for SCO, the info MOG has toxically spilled
can only be traced back to them and could well attract
Judicial notice. Just think what would happen if MOG's
filing has details in it about the sealed material that
could only have come direct from SCO, do you think the
Judge could ignore such a blatent disregard of the Court's
Seal?
I think SCO thought they could use MOG as a conduit to
leak stuff about the e-mail, raise FUD about IBM hiding
behind the seal, make idle threats to unseal the
documents, etc. I don't think they counted on MOG
deciding to take things a step further to prove what a
loyal servent she is. Methinks she's really set the cat
among the pigeons this time, I can't wait to read the
filing to see if she indicts SCO by proxy (at only 9
pages, at least we can be sure it wasn't written by
SCO :-)
John.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 06:26 AM EST |
"Yeah, when I think of Maureen, I think of two things: Asphalt, and
trouble."
Seemed appropriate, ATM.
Full quote:
"Whenever I smell asphalt, I think of Maureen. That's the last sensation I
had before I blacked out; that thick smell of asphalt. She said she'd fix my
bike. Free. No strings attached. I shoulda've known then that things were never
that simple. Yeah, when I think of Maureen, I think of two things: Asphalt, and
trouble."[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 06:26 AM EST |
Don't. Feed. The. Trolls.
All you are doing is giving
credibility, page hits and money to this advertising-supported sensationalist.
I can't think what purpose you believe that you're serving by bothing to pick
apart something that has no bearing on the actual case.
O'Gara is
not Joker to your Batman. She's a nothing. A non-entity. Just let it
go already. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- PJ, PJ, dear PJ, when WILL you learn? - Authored by: kryten_nl on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 07:34 AM EST
- it has a direct bearing on Groklaw itself - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 07:44 AM EST
- it has a direct bearing on Groklaw itself - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 07:45 AM EST
- PJ, PJ, dear PJ, when WILL you learn? - Authored by: ppentz on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 11:24 AM EST
|
Authored by: Stumbles on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 07:20 AM EST |
It would be great if all the sealed documents were out in the open.
But really,
if it happened I don't see it changing anything about
SCOGs case in their
favor.
Oh it might show IBM might have been wrong in walking away from
the contract they way they did..... but does that really change
anything about
their contributions to Linux. Not that I can see.
Opening those
documents might show some things about how IBM
handles internal affairs, etc.
Does that change anything? No, not that I
can see.
As we all have seen
the day and light difference between the
professionalism and skills of the two
parties lawyers. IMO, it is
reasonably safe to say IBM has been acting way more
fairly and above
board than SCOGs. Of course, when you have no real case to
start
with, bluster is about all you got.
The only thing that would help
SCOGs case at this point, IMO, is to
fullfill the two court orders they are
currently in violation of (almost
from day one). --- You can tune a
piano but you can't tuna fish. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: blacklight on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 07:31 AM EST |
MO came up with her scoop that SCOG was coming up with its own website to
counter the effectiveness of groklaw. In the event, SCOG thought twice about it
and decided against it.
MO going to court to get the docs unsealed is nothing more than a fig leaf
attempt to salvage her professional reputation. I am repeating myself: if IBM's
sealed docs were as damaging as she believes, asserts or infers, then both
SCOG's and IBM's legal strategies would have been affected. Instead, IBM
launched about four PSJ motions in a row, and SCOG is just one or two court
hearings away from disaster. And everything thas has transpired or ocurred since
March 2003 has validated the groklaw community's analysis time and again.
As a trained engineer, I make decisions all time based on the facts that I have,
the facts that I don't have and sometimes on my belief that the ensuing events
will validate my decision. The groklaw community's analysis has yet to be proved
inaccurate in any substantial respect.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: pfusco on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 08:51 AM EST |
I wonder if IBM / Novell / RedHat either together or independantly can sue those
publications and Miss O'Gara for Latham Act issues. I mean it is faily obvious
that there is some collusion going on here.
I hope so --- only the soul
matters in the end [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: spuluka on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 08:59 AM EST |
I was thinking that someone should request a redacted transcript of the hearing
in question at the least.
Also,is not the requirment to review privledge logs the oversight of all these
sealed documents? If I understood correctly each side was going to get a chance
to challenge the privledge claim that the other cited in their log. It seems to
me that this process should play out first before one calls foul.
---
Steve Puluka
Pittsburgh, PA[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 09:26 AM EST |
I heard a radio interview with a former National Enquirer reporter. His
editor's advice to him was: "Don't fact check yourself out of a good
story."
'nuff said.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 10:08 AM EST |
So does this request to unseal stuff go before Kimball? Or Wells? Does the
request go on the docket of SCO vs IBM, or is it a separate case? Would one
expect it to get ruled on sometime soon, or do judges usually blow this stuff
off until after the case is tried?
Inquiring minds want to know, thanks for any insight.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 10:13 AM EST |
SCOX has experienced an unusual reversal of it long trend of sliding into the
toilet, starting about a month ago. It has now returned to the $4.00 level
after months in the lower regions.
O'Gara's article is just the most sensational in a list of pro-SCO fluff
articles released during the last month. Could these pro-SCO 'journalists' be
doing SCO stockholders a favor by willfuly poseing questions that fly into the
face of accumulated facts in order to pump the stock? It looks like it to me.
O'Gara's deliberately false statement that "IBM is believed to have been
particularly free with the seal", which PJ dispatches with finality, is
just one of many examples that a little Google searching will reveal.
I wonder: they have to be getting more out of this sorry affair than just web
page hits... $$$ ??? After all, SCO has a proven in court history of enlisting
the aid of willing journalists, analysts, and brokers to promote its stock
scams. IIRC, a journalist was convicted.
(http://www.legalcasedocs.com/120/248/211.html#item1, but it is now
pay-per-view)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 10:37 AM EST |
One thing that I haven't seen any one talk about (it may be hidden under some of
the threads) is the confidential nature of attorney-client communication. As
most people will notice most of the IBM documents that have been sealed seem to
be of two varieties. The first is responces to TSG filings that were sealed and
the second are depositions/e-mail correspondence. Now if those
depositions/e-mails contained information that was(is) covered under
attorney-client confedential communication exceptions/protections then they
should by all rights be sealed and protected. Since statements that are made in
and/or relseaed to the public can no longer be covered as such.
Granted IANAL so I may be interpreting things incorectly but it does this may be
the case.
THANKS PJ and all the regular posters for keeping us up to date. KEEP up the
GREAT WORK!!!
-Ish-[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: TAZ6416 on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 10:48 AM EST |
http://www.linuxbusinessweek.com/story/47264_f.htm
You may not want to click that though if she's getting paid for ads though.
In a nutsell, Jeff Merkley seems to have reappeared, and they're accusing PJ of
really being Daniel Egger (how do you do a rollseyes smiley?)
Jonathan[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jmc on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 11:08 AM EST |
On CC10.
We going absolutely bananas waiting!
Look no further than this story for the proof.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 11:28 AM EST |
<b>Don't journalists check their facts any more before they write biased
articles?</b>
no, they don't.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: hardcode57 on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 11:29 AM EST |
This is what we who often post in another nameless place call a wookie, as in
'Look at the wookie!' when bad news or patenly silly filings are otherwise going
to be at the forefront of peoples minds. In this case I think there were some
filings yesterday?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Wookie! - Authored by: bap on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 05:03 PM EST
|
Authored by: Brian S. on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 11:57 AM EST |
Try as I might I can't break the link between SYS-CON, Java and Sun. Google
the web or groups and the apparent connection is there including a few maybe
wild accusations in groups. Everywhere I look, I find a disclaimer such as
this:
All company and product names may be trademarks or registered
trademarks of their respective companies in the United States and other
countries. SYS-CON is independent of Sun and all other companies mentioned in
this press release.
Link
They appear to be big in Java related trade shows and their reason
in life seems to be to push corporate i-offerings. Their connection with
journalism is tenuous to say the least.
A good read about them via Google is
required. Brian S.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 12:17 PM EST |
Everyone, let's just move on. O'Gara's articles are just a waste of net space
and that is all. Did anyone catch that one about Novell using its copyrights to
Unix to derail Solaris being open sourced. Remember? The one where it started
out as if Novell was out to get Sun, but at the end said Novell was sympathetic
of Sun and understood why they were open sourcing solaris. Yeah, that's the one,
the article that was completely pointless....kind of like the rest of the trash
she writes.
Everyone should just ignore her so she will GO AWAY (put that in caps hoping she
happens to read it and gets the point)
She reminds me of a fly, just a little annoying thing that you would like to
step on. Anyways, if anyone could find that Sun article or any other amusing but
completely pointless articles by O'Gara, please post them. I need a good laugh.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 12:28 PM EST |
Who cares if certain documents are sealed or not? All it means is they
are not available to the public. The judge sees them. SCO sees them.
IBM sees them. If there is anything in there that gives SCO
ammunition to destroy Linux, F/OSS, and the world as we know it,
they already have it. All their paid shrills like O'Gara (and note how
the famous deep thinker <a
href="http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/ADTI-Ready-for-Round-Three-with-Ope
n-Sourcers-38461.html">Ken
Brown</a> has re-surfaced) are doing is pumping up the stock price.
After all this time, SCO has yet to make good on a single threat. No
millions of lines of literally-copied code. No avalanche of suits against
end-users. No kicking that upstart Linux's butt all to heck. Just more
toothless gumming and railing. It's mildly entertaining, like
watching someone bite the head off a bat, but that's about all.
__
Carla the country geek
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 12:42 PM EST |
Just curious if perhaps maybe some of the filings that were sealed were because
they contain references or quotes from the USL vs BSDi agreement. Now that that
cat is out of the bag, the seal of some filings may be moot. Perhaps we shall
know, perhaps not..[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: StLawrence on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 01:20 PM EST |
Someone ought to copy all the silly articles and collect
them in one place, so we can read them without racking up
web hits on the silly rags that carry them. Web hits
translate into $$$ from advertisers, even if the stories
are ludicrous or laughable.
Alternatively, if everyone who reads Maureen's or Rob's
silliness calls up just ONE advertiser listed next to their
story and explains that anyone dumb enough to advertise on
a site that publishes their "stories" is too dumb to deserve
our business, and that's why we're now boycotting their
(the advertiser's) publication/product/service, well then,
maybe we would see those silly stories a lot less...
Ask for the person in charge of the Marketing department.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 01:30 PM EST |
While I am eager to see SCO lose, I'm afraid I can't entirely agree with PJ; in
my opinion, sealing is vastly overused in the US court system, and it does not
serve the public. To take a recent example, the fact that the USL vs University
of California settlement was kept secret for a decade did not serve the public
interest. Corporate wrongdoing is often kept quiet as part of a settlement
deal; harmed members of the public are encouraged to take money in exchange for
keeping the whole thing secret, even when other members of the public continue
to be harmed.
There are certainly reasons for some documents to be sealed;
for example, both SCO and IBM own proprietary source code, and there's no reason
for the court to compel any of that to be revealed to the public. But I would
hope that reporters would continue to push the court to make more information
available than the court would be naturally inclined to reveal. After all,
that's their job.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 02:36 PM EST |
Could this be a co-ordinated effort to introduce a new party into the case and
further delay the inevitable?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 03:16 PM EST |
Like further her career.
A trip through the Wayback Machine to read some past CSN pages shows some
no-so-SCO-positive articles. So now she's proSCO. It seems to me she is
pro-<whoever will get me the most publicity>.
I also came across a story on LBW from last year, "Novell Tried to Buy
SUSE, Sources Say" were MOG says, "We have it on very good authority
that Novell just tried and failed to buy SuSE...." Failed? I guess that
authority wasn't so good after all.
MOG is just another hack reporter trying to get ahead of the other hack
reporters. The filing for this latest stunt says that its "G2 Computer
Intelligence" that's filing, which I know, owns CSN, but it would be more
correct for her atricle to say that "Maureen O'Gara filed.....". Just
another stunt to get publicity, get people to subscribe to her 'gram.
An interesting(?) hit came on Yahoo about "ADDAMAX vs. OSF, HP and
DEC", where G2 Computer Intelligence was listed as a "movant".
So she's done this before?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Press trolling - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 06:39 PM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 04:00 PM EST |
Wouldn't we all like some stuff released out in the open. But I guess it is all
part of due process.
Do you think IBM is doing SCO a favor by sealing some stuff up, delaying the
ineviable? Isn't the whole purpose of SCO sealing stuff because of propriatary
information and source-code disclosure? You mean SCO has something to hide?
Yeesh, get outta here! I don't believe it, such a fine upstanding citizen Darl
McBribe is. Yes sir-ee Bob.
If Darl was president, we would OWN Iraq!
Nothing new here to see. Move on.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 04:35 PM EST |
...apart from their inability to recognize that they are paralyzed on their left
side. They will persist in their sincere denials, even in the face of patent
failure to pick up trays or tie showlaces. Squirting cold water into their left
ears brings them to their senses for some mysterious reason, but, sadly, for
only a short time.
---The above is a quote from a review (published in New Scientist) of the book
Phantoms in the Brain by V.S. Ramachandran at the University of California San
Diego. It relates to this topic in that I often wonder how "certain
people" (who shall remane nameless) can say some of the stuff they do and
not feel they are liars and frauds. Perhaps there are "less severe"
symptoms of the same (or related) conditions in people who fanatically believe
rubbish.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jaydee on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 05:09 PM EST |
I always enjoy your comments Quatermass, perhaps you could clarify a point on
this one though.
Why is this filing coming from Maureen O'Gara rather than the SCO lawyers?
PR Advantage perhaps, but it all strikes me as to organised for SCO or their
lawyers.
In the absence of evidence I tend to a theory of incompetence rather conspiracy.
---
Micro$oft. What's broken today?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jaydee on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 05:11 PM EST |
I always enjoy your comments Quatermass, perhaps you could clarify a point on
this one though.
Why is this filing coming from Maureen O'Gara rather than the SCO lawyers?
PR Advantage perhaps, but it all strikes me as to organised for SCO or their
lawyers.
In the absence of evidence I tend to a theory of incompetence rather conspiracy.
---
Micro$oft. What's broken today?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 05:51 PM EST |
Why do people who are opposed to an issue tend to have organizations with
names that seem to be _for_ said issue? Examples: "Americans for Balanced
Energy Choices" - the coal industry. Linuxgram - O'Gara. "Foundation
for Clean Air Progress" - businesses that pollute. Linuxworld - O'Gara. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 06:45 PM EST |
The fact that a pro SCO-X web site wants to unseal the docs SCO-X sealed means
"the SCO code don't fit in Linux"
The FUD factor is dying, I do not believe the SCO-X documents will be unsealed;
if SCO-X/MS/Maureen want to unseal docs, they will try to leave any
"FUDable" SCO-X docs sealed.
Probably they want to disclose the propriatary code submitted by IBM, to cause
the same type of "contract problem" they accused IBM of in the first
place.
I believe IBM submitted some code containing CA and other companies code.
I am sure Microsoft would love to get their hands on the IBM AIX code; Longhorn
would be finished quicker <g>...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: dmomara on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 07:38 PM EST |
Slowly the case has rolled back to the old Monterey theme after all of the
incoherent ramblings of nearly two years.
At this point the arguement will boil down to a claim that IBM has, during the
joint development program, appropriated code from the mighty UnixWare to
"improve" AIX. Out of context e-mails by misinformed insiders
certainly help in that effort to kite the stock once more and to get the undies
of "analysts" in a bunch.
Hatches (no pun intended) are battened for a FUD flood in the upcoming weeks
from the usual suspects fraught with dire speculations of the demise of
everything from Open Source to motherhood unless some way is found to placate
the mighty SCO. I, personally, wouldn't worry. Here's why:
A certain road was prepared for such nonsense at the filing of the first
preposterously purple complainyt with the "inadvertent" stapling of
SCO SOFT-2538 to the tripartate Amendment X of IBM's original license. For the
uninformed (some within IBM itself might fall into the trap) the incongruity
between IBM's "UNIX System V R3.2" source code license and its AIX
product might make one onder. AXI was, after all branded Unix95 as early as 4.2.
By the time of the inception of the Monterey program, AIX 4.3 was Unix98 branded
and was to form the code base for the project (read the contract) as well as
become a source for improvements in UnixWare that SCO hoped would ultimately
lead to Unix98 branding in the 32 bit line as well as be a road toward its own
64 bit offering on the "high volume" Itanic.
How then, did IBM with its lowly SVR3.2 license get to the point where their
operating system could be certified Unix95 and therefore be SVR4 compliant? I
guess one would have to also wonder how they came to arive at Unix95
certification and branding for zOS or os390. Hint: they wrote to meet the
specification. Now the merry chase really begins, with "SCO" trying to
find out how IBM "stole" precious SVR4 code and managed to hide it in
AIX, cause darned if they can find it.
We all knew that there would be a good reason for someone to license
"system V API's" for their SFU product, didn't we?
Ah well, enough musings. Someday I'll have to remind someone at Maureen's office
that nobody ever licensed System3, but then again, why bother.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SeismoGuy on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 07:41 PM EST |
In InformationWeeks story: htt
p://informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=54201645
you
can find http://www.clientservernew
s.com/CSN-Filing.pdf
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 08:39 PM EST |
I find it interesting to read MOG's articles of misinformation, but one that
does trouble me was her 11/26 article regarding PJ. Both she and several
posters to her forum question PJ's existance.
While I definately am not one of them, I do have a simple question: PJ, why not
show up to the LinuxWorld Expo in Boston or something similar. Granted, You
want your privacy, and that should be respected, but there's nothing that you
can write that will convince the doubters, except fishing for the big troll
herself at a shing-ding like this.
I would love to be there when you introduce yourself to her, maybe getting a
good photo op, and completely deMOGrifying yourself in a big way.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 08:55 PM EST |
Assume O'Gara has some magical abilities and all of
her articles and speculation are dead on.
What does the AIX on Power stuff have to do with
Linux? What does any of this have to do with Linux?
Where does all of her nonsense about SCO somehow
destroying Linux and the entire Open Source movement
come from?
I don't see how Linux is affected _at all_ by this case no
matter what the outcome. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 08:57 PM EST |
Here
is a link to a comment from someone purporting to be you. Just curious if
it really is. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 01 2004 @ 10:15 PM EST |
Ms OG sounds kind of unpleasant, but some potential mispresumptions exist that
might be corrected by the opening of some of these documents. If details are
unflattering to IBM, Linux, or Open Source, (doubt it but ya never know) now's
as good a time as any to take input on a heads up. Her invective
notwithstanding, she may yet be of service, even in the worst case scenario, and
may get herself laughed out of town in the best. Regards to Ms O'Gara and her
efforts.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 02 2004 @ 03:08 AM EST |
Since when does the meddling press have the right to start interfering in a
civil court action between two companies?
I find her actions offensive.
Although- I do want to see those documents. Very badly.
I want to see it settled.
Because if my hunch is right, I'll be considering a class action against Darle
McBride himself for the damage he caused my business with perhaps false
statements in the press.
I mean C'mon... If SCO has no case... which I believe to be true... then what
follows is the largest most unethical market manipulation ever pulled off by one
or more companies, against a software production model that is essentially built
on individual initiative.
I am so indignant over this I've REFUSED to deal with clients that rely on
Microsoft or SCO. Microsoft products are summarily being removed from my
network.
And one only has to spend about a week in my shoes to see how customers suffer
from "non-traditional" competitive practices created by FUD and mis
information passed off as "opinion". I have one customer that hates
Microsoft but can't move because a software developer only developes for
Windows. Another is stuck because voice recognition software they use for
transcription is Windows only.
Un-natural monopoly is a trap. It traps consumers- AND it traps programmers who
are the creative force behind any software innovation. It also traps the IT
professionals that work so hard at their job.
I thought, after I left Apple Computer, that I had found a great place to hang
my hat professionally- the Linux world.
On the very outside chance that SCO could win some of this case, I am faced with
the fact that once again I will be in a situation where my business may be
untenable due to the rise in cost of running a server. And that my honest
individual work in building a small business to support myself will be intruded
upon once again by "big business" and the litigious nature of the
corporate sociopath.
I am filled with indignation![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|