decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
My Very Own Motion, Tra La
Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 12:31 AM EDT

Well, obviously, I can't say much about this new SCO filing [PDF] at this time. It's all about moi. A bit more here and here.

I can say this: SCO in its wisdom has just guaranteed that the judges in SCO v. IBM and SCO v. Novell will have to read Groklaw. So, welcome Judge Kimball. Welcome, Judge Wells. We've enjoyed very much learning about the law by watching you at work. SCO told you something that isn't true. No one tried to serve me that I knew about. No one informed me of any deposition date. That is true. It doesn't feel so nice to be smeared like this, I can tell you that, and to have to pay a lawyer to deal with this harassment. I view it as such, as a kind of SLAPP suit, a vendetta to pay me back for blowing the whistle, and to shut Groklaw up. SCO wants to put a pin on a map and point to it and say, "Here's PJ." Then someone drops by and shoots me, I suppose. I certainly have nothing to tell them that is relevant to this litigation.

Forsooth, methinks SCOfolk need to get better aligned with truth, justice, and the American way, as the saying goes. But that's the judges' job, so I'll end my comments about this here.

There are 20 some exhibits, some sealed, most not, and as you will see, stories got planted in the media and then presented in court as "proof" once again. I'll tell you more later, when I can.

And so the stupidest lawsuit in the history of the world just got stupider. And a whole lot meaner.

Here are the exhibits:


  


My Very Own Motion, Tra La | 1501 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
What I learned from this case
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 12:46 AM EDT
Is absolutely how incompetent so call journalists and the "media" are.
It seems like anyone can just copy whatever is sent to them in a PR release and
call it an article. I'm glad the internet is eliminating them...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections here (if any)
Authored by: leonpmu on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 12:54 AM EDT
Over here ->

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic Here
Authored by: leonpmu on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 12:55 AM EDT
Please make links clickable by using html tags --->

[ Reply to This | # ]

My Very Own Motion, Tra La
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 01:05 AM EDT
Hang tough. You obviously scare the living hell out of them.

They have nothing but bile and pain. They use the bile in an attempt to spread
the pain.

You might want to think of this as a last chance to watch a soon to be extinct
parasitic corporate specie in the wild.

(or a cockfight between a cornish game hen and a veloceoraptor)

Anyway sco just bought you a ticket to the bloodsport. Bring popcorn.


[ Reply to This | # ]

My Very Own Motion, Tra La
Authored by: chaz_paw on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 01:13 AM EDT
At the moment 2007-04-04 00:12:08 Exhibits 7 and 22 not found.

---
Proud Linux user since 07/26/04
Registered Linux user #422376

Charles

[ Reply to This | # ]

Metadata in 1018
Authored by: stats_for_all on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 01:14 AM EDT
I trust some members of the legal profession that browse this site will represent you with vigor, and I trust the innuendo and half-truths of this document will prove self defeating.

The 1118 memorandum is authored by "Boies Schiller & Flexner Scanned PDF". Scanned documents have had an miscellaney of authorships typically a printer brand name, but a brief review back into the 950's don't show that author tag on other documents.

Looks like the Memorandum with all its innuendo got careful vetting at Boies headquarters before it went out to the court.

The 1116 and 1117 proposed orders are conversions of .doc done by author "Jeremy". This is almost certainly Jeremy O. Evans, a junior member of the Hatch James outfit (but also at another firm). Hatch and James documents have typically have "Brent"as the metadata author. (including declararations by James).

Boies and Schiller originating documents have lowercase metadata authors (e.g. kobrien, ljohnson)

[ Reply to This | # ]

My Very Own Motion, Tra La
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 01:18 AM EDT
Let us know when you need us to fund the kitty. Much as I hate to see my money
going to lawyers, at least it will be for a good cause (unlike paying for the
lawyers in my divorce).

[ Reply to This | # ]

My Very Own Motion, Tra La
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 01:20 AM EDT
The link to Exhibit 7 seems to be broken.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Ex 7 is sealed - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 11:01 AM EDT
Join the dots...
Authored by: mrcreosote on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 01:34 AM EDT
With all those exhibits, when you join the dots, I seem to end up with......a
whole bunch of dots and a whole bunch of lines.

---
----------
mrcreosote

[ Reply to This | # ]

Exhibit 20 looks interesting
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 01:38 AM EDT
It looks like they think they've caught you out somehow in some error involving
timing, document availability and pacer records. If this is the line of
questioning they plan to grill you on for eight hours - you have my utmost
sympathy.

[ Reply to This | # ]

This is why I stay anonymous also
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 01:42 AM EDT
My primary responsibility is to my family. It is a threat like this, a baseless
fabrication of lie upon lie (and the courts allow it!) which keep my mouth shut.
Exposing injustice, fraud, or criminal activity is usually not worth the
retribution; in this case, retribution sanctioned by our court system. The more
this is allowed, the more irrelevent our laws become, as there will be few
honest citizens willing to pay such an extreme price for justice. Perhaps
judges do not think of something like this as being "extreme," but let
me assure them for a struggling family to be forced to hire a lawyer, and to
possibly lose a job (and health insurance), it is most certainly an extreme
price to pay.

PJ, you are a brave soul, and driven to support what you plainly see as right.
Don't let these thugs intimidate you, their days of deception and bullying are
rapidly nearing an end. And their end is completely of their own doing, they
have no one to blame but themselves.

[ Reply to This | # ]

What an Opportunity!
Authored by: kawabago on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 01:43 AM EDT
You get to speak directly to the Judges, for the record! This can only hurt
SCO.

Your Honours, the reason Groklaw always dissects and debunks SCO's submissions
is because they are not true. SCO has never had a case as you well know now that
you have been on a 4 year fishing trip on the SCOboat to China!

[ Reply to This | # ]

My Very Own Motion, Tra La
Authored by: jimbudler on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 01:49 AM EDT

I find it hard to find any sense in this, at all.

Yes, they brought up the short lived OSDL relationship, but so what? OSDL is not a party to this suit. Is any-one who opposes SCO on any grounds automatically included in the suit?

I went through most of the exhibits. I don't see why SCOG presented them. Most of them favor Groklaw.

There's only like two that even approach favoring SCOG.

PJ worked for OSDL. So what, they aren't party to the suit.

PJ didn't accept service in Connecticut. It wasn't long ago they said she was an old maid living near IBM's NY headquarters in a village *IN* New York.

---
Jim Budler

[ Reply to This | # ]

My Very Own Motion, Tra La
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 02:05 AM EDT
"SCO told you something that isn't true. No one tried to serve me that I
knew about. No one informed me of any deposition date. That is true."

You must have stopped reading Groklaw during your illness, PJ, because the rest
of us were discussing SCO's efforts on a daily basis -- while suggesting and
offering potential hiding places where you might evade service.

Of course, I never believed it for a moment. Your oft-vaunted belief and
commitment to the US court system would never allow you to do such a thing. But
some of your readers were rather less charitable.

And can I suggest that those are one set of unhelpful comments you might wish to
avoid deleting?

Good luck with the depo.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Are BSF really this incompetent?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 02:06 AM EDT
Exhibit 18 is taken from Westlaw. It's got the copyrights all over it. How could This not be available to the public. All it requires is a subscription to Westlaw, which any member of the public is entitled to buy. How can this possibly fool the judge unless he is blinder than a bat? Did they even get the date wrong (August 13(date stamped), August 16(alleged date posted) or August 18(alleged date available))!? They are correct in stating that the posted copy did not come from the court, because it came from Westlaw! Do they really think the Judge is this stupid to not notice? This goes beyond incompetence and plausible deniability.
What do you Legal experts, on Groklaw, have to say about this? Isn't there some rule that requires some due diligence on the part of the attorneys to endeavor to get it right? Could any lawyer seriously say with a straight face that they didn't notice the Westlaw copyright information that appears on every page of the exhibit? I'm sorry, but to me, if I was the judge, some attorney would be facing perjury charges and facing possible disbarment(sic?). I mean really isn't Westlaw one of the teaching tools in law school? Or am I totally offbase?

[ Reply to This | # ]

I thought discovery was over in SCO vs. IBM
Authored by: kh on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 02:14 AM EDT
So why is this relevant to SCO vs. IBM? Also this is a very meaty exhibit in
many ways but no-where seems to detail what it is that SCO thinks PJ knows that
is relevant to the case at hand? Is it just about funding from IBM?

Really what is the point?

[ Reply to This | # ]

A very special opportunity
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 02:14 AM EDT
This is an absolutely golden opportunity for PJ and Groklaw. Go get them girl!

[ Reply to This | # ]

The last few paragraphs
Authored by: Aim Here on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 02:31 AM EDT
What's the legal justification for the last few paragraphs of IBM-1018?

SCO's motion is intended to dump more evidence into the IBM case after the
discovery date, but the last four or five paragraphs just have a bunch of case
law all about what they're might be able to do to serve PJ, and is completely
irrelevant to this motion. That belongs in a filing related to SCO vs Novell, or
possibly to the court that's issuing their subpoena. That whole section just
looks like SCO is using the court filing to make irrelevant shouty threats in
public.

They also manage to describe their pal Dan Lyons' as a "Wall Street Journal
reporter". How could they get that wrong, after all he's done for them?

[ Reply to This | # ]

    what are they trying to achieve?
    Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 02:42 AM EDT
    I noticed that this was filed in SCO v. IBM. Here, it seems, SCO is trying to
    reopen discovery years after it closed.

    In the same motion SCO asks the judge that the deposition be admitted to SCO v.
    Novell. However, the certificate of service says that it was served only to
    David Mariott and Todd Shaughnessy, both IBM lawyers. Am I reading this right?
    It seems that Novell did not get a copy of this motion. Also, it says they
    provided a copy to IBM "in redacted form". wtf???

    My guess is that IBM will argue that SCO has missed the boat on discovery and
    PJ's deposition should not be admitted as evidence. That is the only reasonable
    conclusion. However, Novell's discovery is still open, so PJ's deposition may be
    admitted there. What exactly is SCO trying to achive with this (besides
    harassment)?

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    They wouldn't care, PJ, if you weren't making a difference.
    Authored by: billyskank on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 02:46 AM EDT
    Though I know that doesn't help much.

    ---
    It's not the software that's free; it's you.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    The court of public opinion
    Authored by: yorgasor on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 02:58 AM EDT
    "The content and commentary of the website (and other evidence) show that
    Ms. Jones is not an objective commentator, but rather a vehicle through with
    opponents of SCO have conducted their case against SCO in the court of public
    opinion, where no gate-keeper monitors the reliability of content."

    HAHAHAHA! That must be why SCO tried soooo hard to wage their court battles
    there, hoping no one would notice their unreliable content. It's a good thing PJ
    came along to be the gate-keeper.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Similar to Otis Wilson re-depo
    Authored by: TeflonPenguin on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 03:03 AM EDT
    IANAL, but I was pondering... This seems very similar to the last ditch effort
    to depose Otis Wilson. Of course this poor soul had nothing to do with this
    battle, but was sucked in anyway. IIRC, he applied for relief to the wrong
    court (i.e. somewhere else), and not Judge Wells. She could not grant relief
    since that was not her court, and thus, he was re-deposed. Since PJ will not
    make that mistake, I wonder if she can duck this obvious harassment. Clearly,
    most (if not all) of this is in regards to IBM, and that discovery has closed.
    They appear to be trying to tie it to Novell, and thus try to justify the need
    for the deposition. But on the upside, this clearly shows they have
    N-O-T-H-I-N-G. If there best shot as finding a case now is harassing PJ, they
    are rearranging the deck furniture on the Titanic.

    ---
    -------------
    TelfonPenguin

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Did they not send you a fax?
    Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 03:07 AM EDT
    That would be be their style. No?
    Good Luck.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    • Well yes, but... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 01:39 PM EDT
    Orchestrated?
    Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 03:21 AM EDT
    I'm guessing they were waiting for PJ to take a break. So they back-date a
    deposition form, make some noise about how PJ went on break after finding out
    she was being served, wait for her to come back, and then file this junk.

    I'm respecting the Hatch family less and less.

    joudanzuki, being a troll, I suppose

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Notary
    Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 03:24 AM EDT
    I'm not familiar enough with US law, but wouldn't it be possible to have a
    notarized statement made, claiming you truely are who you claim to be, and just
    send that to the lawyers.
    This way PJ could preserve her anonymity and put a stop to this muddragging.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    • Notary - Authored by: Weeble on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 08:48 AM EDT
    Are they setting a Judge Trap?
    Authored by: insensitive clod on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 03:32 AM EDT
    By introducing Groklaw into the Lawsuit, they drag discussions about the suit and discussions about the Judges in front of the very same Judges. Could it simply be that they want a situation where any decision of the Judges could be appealed , or even worse, that they can request Kimball and Wells to be taken of the case?

    ---
    Lemmings vs Penguins

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    PS, we love you
    Authored by: Aladdin Sane on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 03:38 AM EDT
    OK, I have to say it, without sexual intent or feeling, I love you, PJ.

    I have to say this. Please forgive me. This is not the first time I've spoken in such terms, it is the third. I hope you can bear it being public.

    I read the memorandum, I see the plants. They are sequential and obvious.

    This is not about law, it is about psychology. PJ, please flow with it, it is a structural barrier to your phobic desire (Social Phobia) for solitude (one which I share). To get past it (just for the required moment), requires going with it: Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. At this point, it is society's nature we speak of.

    This is not about law, this is about Val Kreidel and Robert Penrose. Some here do not remember, but I miss them.

    This is not about law, it is about Agoraphobia and episodic Depression, the symptoms of which I share with you PJ. And it's about "terminal shyness."

    This is not about law, it is about intimidation, tactical surprise (ambush), and about civilian targets. This is about human shields.

    This is not about law, this is about suicide, pain, and the "divine wind." Whose suicide, we already know. Or do we?

    In my own geeky way, "$DEITY bless you, PJ." I support you in your decisions without question or reservation.

    This is not about law, this is about what you have done here. This is Groklaw's finest moment. I pray it will be yours too.

    Drink deep,

    Jason

    ---
    Beating my head on a brick wall / Hard like a stone / Ain't got time for the music / They want the blood from a clone   --George Harrison

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Yet another delay attempt ...
    Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 03:41 AM EDT
    Looks like they are catching any straw they can to delay what they can.

    I mean hey, is there ANY misinformation on Groklaw ? Through the years I am
    following this site, all information (except PJs personal comments) has a linked
    verifiable source listed with it.

    I see this as a kind of vendetta and harassment attempt. And also more delay and
    smoke fabrication. I mean why don't they depose Laura Didio or that Enderle guy
    ? They were big-mouthed about the case from the beginning. Just because PJ did
    not buy the FUD story like they did, we now see this mud throwing ?

    PJ you have my sympathy from the start. It's a joy to see Groklaw members at
    work. I learned much about the facts of the case and the US court system. I hope
    the judges know about Groklaw and see this in the right light.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Tickling the tail of the dragon
    Authored by: Tufty on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 03:50 AM EDT
    Bad plan

    Tufty


    ---
    There has to be a rabbit down this rabbit hole somewhere!
    Now I want its hide.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Evading? ....Avoiding being sucked into the Maelstrom
    Authored by: David Dudek on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 03:51 AM EDT
    This would be a perfect time for a Howard Hughes/Clifford Irving moment.

    Howard Hughes was also very protective of his privacy. Believing that Hughes
    valued his privacy more than exposing a fraud, Clifford Irving wrote a faked
    "authorized autobiography" of Howard Hughes.

    In a sensational televised teleconference, Howard Hughes exposed the fraud.
    (Note: Jail time was served for the fraud. Hummmm....)

    ---
    David Dudek

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    I wouldn't joke about Darl the Gun Nut
    Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 03:51 AM EDT
    PJ wrote:
    "SCO wants to put a pin on a map and point to it and say, "Here's PJ." Then someone drops by and shoots me, I suppose."
    An anon poster on /. said it best so I'll just quote him here:
    These jokes about death are not funny.

    Remember, this is a case involving a self described gun nut who travels under assumed names

    Bloomberg News
    Darl McBride, chief executive of SCO Group Inc., says he sometimes carries a gun because his enemies are out to kill him. He checks into hotels under assumed names.
    This same nut in a company conference call described hiring people to follow PJ.

    This is a case involving "suicides"of people who have disagreements with the SCO management team that even SCO supporters can't explain (DiDio calling it "shocking and mystifying" and even Enderle saying "Why commit suicide right after the settlement when the people you wanted gone are gone? The timing doesn't seem right, given that things were presumably going her way as far as the lawsuit was concerned".

    (the original /. posting http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=149012&cid=12490299 )

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Umm... is there any substance to the OSDL claim?
    Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 03:54 AM EDT
    SCO are claiming that OSDL, under an IBM chairman and with Novell representation, gave $50,000 (from funds contributed by IBM) to PJ. If true, that does look rather whiffy.

    Note: if true, and even if it's true, that doesn't mean that PJ was influenced in any way, and even if she was, that would be an issue for OSDL and IBM, not for PJ.

    But even so... I'd like to know if there's substance in that specific allegation.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    This site is so important to IBM that
    Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 03:55 AM EDT
    four of the IBM servers are seven years old and seven of them are six years
    old.
    The database server is a four-way P-III 700Mhz. Obviously IBM has Groklaw at the
    top of the funding list.

    I didn't see Dell mentioned as funding Groklaw, what about VALinux. More than
    half of these machines were manufactured years before this lawsuit came into
    existance. Possibly before the tSCOg came into existance. Probably before Darl
    got out of nappies.

    What a bunch of frauds.

    Ref IBM 1018 Exhibit 16


    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Is this what they call an "end run"?
    Authored by: jmc on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 03:56 AM EDT
    This reads to me like they're just asking on IBM's behalf for an admission
    ticket for IBM to something that's already happening.

    They seek a deposition in the Novell case, Novell doesn't object because as far
    as they are concerned SCO is just wasting a deposition slot on something
    irrelevant to them. (Also GL has been a bit critical of Novell over the MS deal,
    something SCO have forgotten to mention here along with PJ leaving OSRM as soon
    as her independence came under question).

    IBM can't object to the deposition as such because it's not in their case. All
    they can object to is that it become part of their case because presumably that
    way SCO might be able to come up with some bogus issue like the
    "spoilation" claim and sidetrack the IBM case with endless motions,
    re-re-re-reconsideration etc over that.

    But if IBM do successfully object to the deposition becoming part of the case
    they don't get to answer, or get answered by PJ, the lies BS&F are telling
    about IBM funding GL. So aided by MOG and other tame journalists, IBM have a bit
    of mud stuck to them.

    Maybe again the Nazgul have been threatening BS&F about sanctions and
    SCO/BS&F, casting their minds back to Judge Wells indirectly but effectively
    telling Darl to shut up in December 2003 are trying to insinuate that someone in
    the IBM camp is feeding documentation to GL.

    All very nasty - I hope that PJ's opposition does make clear that this is all
    just harassment and ask for sanctions.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    My Very Own Motion, Tra La
    Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 03:59 AM EDT
    It's a shame you can't get SCO branded a vexatious litigant.

    Imagine having to justify to a judge every motion or response... IBM, Novell, et
    al
    would pick them off before they got a chance to drop copies at the clerks
    office.

    Charles from Oz

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    My Very Own Motion, Tra La
    Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 04:19 AM EDT
    Seems to me they're just plain crazy.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Let's prove SCO doesn't exist ...
    Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 04:29 AM EDT
    All it takes is to plant a few postings or maybe even start a Website saying so,
    make Screenshots of our postings and we have all the proof we need.

    That has been SCO's way of "proving" things all along: spreading their
    lies and then present them as truth.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Communications with IBM
    Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 04:40 AM EDT
    I would like to know whether also Groklaw received litigation related documents
    from IBM employees or counsel.
    It doesn't look to me like SCOX wants to incriminate Groklaw activities but
    rather wants to expose IBM's organized campaign to actively feed selected media
    to destabilize SCOX in public perception.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    My Very Own Motion, Tra La
    Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 04:46 AM EDT
    Hey, it appears that anyone who posts in the comments section of Groklaw is ALSO
    working for IBM! I see comments being submitted as proof we're all on IBM's
    side...

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    So what were they doing for almost 2 weeks?
    Authored by: Barrowwright on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 04:47 AM EDT
    The dates here don't make sense:
    Subpoena issued 30th Jan (Tuesday).
    PJ takes a vacation 10th Feb (Sunday).

    So what was happening in the meantime? SCO had at least 8 working days, not
    counting weekends to serve the document and obviously failed completely.

    Maybe they put the subpoena in the famous briefcase with the other important
    documents?

    Did they actually try to serve anyone? Or was this motion the intended
    outcome?

    Still, it will be interesting to watch SCO playing with the footgun again :-)


    ---
    Barrowwright

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    The "how can we help PJ?" thread
    Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 04:47 AM EDT
    As Groklaw has already demonstrated, one of the greatest powers of the community
    is (also) this: many eyeballs make all *accusations* shallow.

    So, to start with, I (for one) have 3 small comments/suggestions:

    - It seems that she already contacted a lawyer. This is a "Good Thing To
    Do" (TM);

    - Shouldn't we bring the focus on blogger's "freedom of speech"?

    - Is there any possibility that her deposition could be done by e-mail (as many
    of Groklaw's interviews and "pick your brains", in the past) instead
    of personally?

    [I am *obviously* not a lawyer. Besides, English is not my first language. And
    I'm anonymous, too. Isn't it wonderful that even someone like me can (try to)
    help?]

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Upsetting the right people
    Authored by: cricketjeff on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 04:52 AM EDT
    The sillyness of folk causes me to break my own rules. I shall put this poem directly here without being invited since it is in direct response to the article and the foolishness that occasioned it. You can of course loo k at it on my own site if you prefer.

    If you rattle people’s cages
    Publish facts on your webpages
    Expose their lies in simple stages
    They may think you do not like them

    If you do what’s right to do
    Be straight and honest through and through
    Stick to your guns like superglue
    The bad guys think its cheating.

    If you twist and lie and cheat
    Stab random backs, jump on feet
    Always try to turn up the heat
    The miscreants think you’re lovely

    We Groklawyers think you should
    Stay on the side of those who’re good
    Keep sorting trees from out the wood
    Most people will support you

    The judges have a job to do
    To bottoms they can apply a shoe
    With a little help from us and you
    The right side will come out winning!

    Copyright info on my site but PJ may use as she wishes and copying verbatim in relation to the case is fine by me.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    And?
    Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 04:55 AM EDT
    Hypothetically, if Groklaw were completely sponsored by IBM, is that even
    relevant to the cases? I suppose if IBM leaked unauthorized material to the
    public via Groklaw, that would be relevant. Is that what they're claiming? I
    just don't understand otherwise...

    Can someone explain why it would matter legally?

    snt

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Oh, SCO, what it is to have the world acting against you.
    Authored by: DaveJakeman on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 05:00 AM EDT
    Could it be there are some people, perhaps many, that simply do not like to see
    SCO strutting their false PR messages, denigrating Linux, the GPL and the open
    source development community, attempting extortion, telling lies, spreading
    fear, uncertainty and doubt, and acting in other despicable ways to SCO's own
    ends?

    How is it that Groklaw's view coincides with that of IBM? Would that be
    anything to do with the truth, perhaps? After all, there may be many different
    ways to lie, but there is only one version of the truth.

    ---
    Only two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity – and I'm not
    sure about the former. -- Einstein

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    My Very Own Motion, Tra La
    Authored by: haegarth on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 05:56 AM EDT
    Just great. I'm quite convinced PJ is a real person, who simply speaks her mind
    blog style. But, of course, I have no proof whatsoever.

    So let's just consider the possibilty SCO was correct with all their
    assumptions, meaning that PJ is, in fact, just an invention of some people at
    IBM - a bunch of ghostwriters acting in favour of IBM's goals. Let's also assume
    SCO had evidence to prove that fact (which I consider highly unlikely).

    What would they gain?

    Until now, they have managed to officially direct Judge Kimball's and Judge
    Wells' attention to groklaw. IMHO everything they will find here is somebody's
    opinion based on reproduceable facts, nothing more, nothing less. No foul
    language, nothing to base a lawsuit on (not counting SCO, who are quite capable
    of constructing a lawsuit on anything whatsoever, that is). Whether there's a
    real person running this site or a conglomerate of IBM employees doesn't change
    anything about groklaw.

    Will it do them any good? Well, since some good arises from anything, here are
    SCO's benefits:
    - they bought more time since both Judges should now have to study a
    considerable percentage of groklaw's content in depth - if they're really
    willing to start taking blogs so serious that they can be deemed valid sources
    for discovery, an implication that has already been discussed in some other post
    on groklaw...

    - a few more articles in SCO's favour (from those who have always taken SCO's
    view as mere truth)

    - ... no, I guess that's it already.

    I doubt that they will gain anything else out of their stupidest move since the
    SCOsuit began, but I'm afraid there's little risk in it for them at this point
    either. Their own creditability has long been shattered by themselves, no decent
    company would still want to make business with them, their financial situation
    is getting worse each day.... they have their backs against the wall, from this
    point there's not much more to lose, so why not point the gun in an arbitrary
    direction and pull the trigger? That's exactly what's happening here, isn't it?

    The fact that PJ may or may not be a real person might be considered to have
    some implication on groklaw's credibility, at least by some SCO lawyer. Whether
    the court will follow them there has to be seen, but chances are slim.

    In the end there's just more delay and more propaganda (even Goebbels would have
    been proud).

    So, PJ, if you're a person: keep up the good work. If you're a team of
    ghostwriters: same goes for you. In any case there's nothing wrong with groklaw!

    ---
    MS holds the patent on FUD, and SCO is its licensee....

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    That motion is outrageous
    Authored by: billyskank on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 06:00 AM EDT
    I am furious. The sooner this offensive, benighted company is beaten into the
    dust, the better. My only fear is that the crooks and liars who perpetrated this
    abomination may never have to face justice.

    </mad>

    ---
    It's not the software that's free; it's you.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    My Very Own Motion, Tra La
    Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 06:01 AM EDT
    Towards the end, especially if nothing has been achieved and failure is in clear
    sight, lashing out at perceived enemies is very common. This is the behaviour
    of the defeated, driven by desperation and warding off the failure to acknowlege
    the end is indeed in clear sight. It may take time but in the round SCO have
    just started to give up. So have their mentors.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    My Very Own Motion, Tra La ... not longer a rumor
    Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 06:09 AM EDT
    PJ, are you aware now that SCO is looking to depose you?

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    SCO Litigation has Jumped the Shark !
    Authored by: David Dudek on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 06:09 AM EDT
    While SCO itself has 'Jumped the Shark' long ago, the SCO Litigation has finally
    'Jumped the Shark' with these filings.

    The BS* team must have a very high opinion of the judges to believe that they
    would interested in the fine equipment donated to a website host. Oh well, as
    the saying goes 'if you can't dazzle them with your brilliance...'

    IF this turkey is reviewed, then maybe there will be a more serious review given
    to the 'contributions' of another $oftware vendor to the fine SCO family.


    ---
    David Dudek

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Paging Mr. Lessig...Mr. Lessig to the White Courtesy Phone
    Authored by: Guil Rarey on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 06:25 AM EDT
    ...or Eben Moglen...

    how about Larry Tribe, for that mattter? Kunstler? I'm in no mood to mess
    about.

    PJ needs a lawyer? PJ's gonna get a lawyer, oh man, is PJ gonna get a lawyer...

    Folks the First Amendment does not exist so you can download porn - no, really!
    That's a side benefit of its real purpose.

    The First Amendment EXISTS for Groklaw, and places like it. Both are honored by
    that statement, and I can think of no finer words of praise.

    Godspeed PJ and where do we donate to the defense fund?

    ---
    If the only way you can value something is with money, you have no idea what
    it's worth. If you try to make money by making money, you won't. You might con
    so

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    You have my support
    Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 06:26 AM EDT
    PJ, I have been following this case since the beginning, and I have been admiring the quality of your work, and very conscious of its value to the free software community.
    So far much has been a battle of words between Groklaw and SCO's PR. Now it gets personal, and that just got you a few PayPal $ from me.

    Let that be a reminder that Law and Justice are 2 different things. But unfortunately in the daily vocabulary, the 1st has disguised itself with the name of the 2nd.
    How would our perception of the system change if the likes of "Department of Justice" would be -rightly- called "Department of Law".

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Sorry, but what is Exhibit 8 about..
    Authored by: GriffMG on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 06:45 AM EDT
    Isn't it just a page of logos... are they in some way harming the SCOCuss?

    How can they possibly be relevant. They might as well be presenting photos of
    celebrities with their teeth blacked, scars and goatees drawn on really badly
    with felt tip pen!

    I just don't get it

    B-(

    ---
    Keep B-) ing

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Another attempt by SCO to circumvent the rules
    Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 07:02 AM EDT
    Isn't this an attempt to get extra discovery in the IBM case, well after the
    discovery deadline has passed?

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Defamation?
    Authored by: Peter Baker on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 07:10 AM EDT
    Isn't this ground to go after SCO for defamation? Or would that just serve them
    as it requires identification of the server?

    In any way, shape or form, this is very plan vanilla legal harassment. As a
    matter of fact, it appears to be not that nice about IBM as well as it suggests
    they use underhand methods.

    But the bright side is indeed that SCO have just caused a VERY large light to be
    pointed at their actions.

    Can share prices go negative? We'll soon find out ...


    ---
    = P =

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Veritas Vincit
    Authored by: sproggit on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 07:16 AM EDT
    If you break this memorandum down to it's simplest components, SCO seems to be building an argument on 2 distinct groups of facts.

    The first is a collection of links (URLs) to articles posted on various internet sites People are quoted, comments are made. I think that Groklaw has learned enough to know that getting to the underlying facts of each of these articles would mean deposing journalists and their subjects as witnesses and would take months to accomplish. So let's set these aside for one moment - with no view as to relevance either way - and concentrate on the second.

    This, as it happens, is one solitary item. It relates to a Groklaw article entitled "IBM Goes for the Jugular - Files Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Contract Claims!" In this reference, SCO imply that PJ posted a non-public version of a case document [with the article] two days before the 'final' public version was entered into the Docket by the clerk.

    So let's break this down and see if the data [evidence] we have supports this.



    For a start, the URL that The SCO Group quote in their motion is wrong. Why am I not surprised? If you'd like a working link to the story, you can find it here.

    Now let's look at the dates in question.

    1. Working backwards in time, SCO claim that the public version of a document was released by the Clerk of the Court on August 18th.

    2. If you look at the Groklaw article - linked above - you will see that it was posted on August 16th, two days earlier, as SCO contends.

    3. When you open the pdf attached to the Groklaw article - the filing - you will see that it was entered into the docket on August 13th, by Clerk of the Court Markus B. Zimmer. [Way to go, Markus!]



    Since obviously IANAL, about the only thing I'm good for around here is checking really simple things that are really easy to establish, it's quite possible that I've completely misunderstood the assertion that SCO are making in their claim in this memorandum. I just don't see what the issue is.

    However, all of this does raise a few simple questions in my simple little mind :-

    1. If the Clerk of the Court really did file the Groklaw version of the document on the 13th [as the stamp on the pdf suggests] then how could SCO claim that PJ acquired it "early" on the 16th? Didn't Groklaw publish this 3 days after it was filed? Isn't this easy to establish with a phone call to Mr Zimmer? Does this need a motion and a subpoena?

    2. If we take facts at face value, we have a lot of evidence to suggest that Groklaw supporters have been collecting documents from the courthouse, then scanning and emailing them to Groklaw for analysis and posting. So is it possible that this could be established with an email trail? If so, and I'm expecting the facts to come crashing down on this allegation, then why bother to make it???

    3. Even if we assume that all of these things are true, we are talking about events which happened in August 2004. That's roughly 32 months ago. Now, if we think about the context of the motion being brought here - and bear in mind IANAL and therefore do not know what I'm talking about - it seems to me that the crux of SCOs argument lies with 2 assertions:

    firstly, that Groklaw is an IBM "front" to be used in their PR campain on this case

    secondly, that in the case of the immediate item, IBM disobeyed a Court instruction to cease discussion of the case with the Press [i,e, PJ, their "front"].

    OK, so those 2 things are bothersome to SCO. But why wait until March/April 2007 to raise them as issues with the Court? This is a relevant question to ask for at least one solid reason: if as SCO contends, Groklaw is an IBM vehicle for this case, it would have been in SCOs interests to have Groklaw shut down [or at least publicly outed as an IBM front] back in 2004 when they came upon this "evidence". Taking SCOs own argument [which seems to be that Groklaw has adversely impacted their case], surely the objective would be for any damage to be minimised by swift action. So now, three years later, this is relevant???... I'm happy to accept that all the various legal "time limits" - is it estoppel? - may not apply here. But commense sense should. And a 3 year delay is not sensible in this instance.



    I don't believe that I could reliably comment upon the relevance or content of the articles posted in the news web sites. These additions in this motion may be hugely relevant, or they may have been included to provide padding and the implication that there is a pattern here for anyone who cares to look for it. I read several of them, and while there are lots of undisputed facts [IBM provided hardware to ibiblio; ibiblio hosts Groklaw] you also have IBM, an ibiblio spokesperson and PJ all saying that there is no mystery and no influence or untoward connection being made. I won't use the right legal term, but I don't think this can be called a fact. I think this is heresay or conjecture. A fact that can be established would be witness testimony, or a written document, or something, that supported SCOs assertion. Sorry, don't see it.



    So let's step back another pace and have another look.

    What are the consequences of this motion?

    For a start, and I have no idea here, once PJ is interviewed, I guess she effectively becomes a witness in the case. Would I be right in thinking that when that happens she would be prohibited, by the Court, from making public commentary on the ongoing case? Is this effectively a gagging order?

    Secondly, does this create a "where there's smoke, there's fire?" style implication? In other words, does this effectively tarnish the reputation of both PJ and IBM in the eyes of the Court?

    Thirdly, if this is the accusation, are SCO asking the Court to find IBM in contempt for discussing the case with "the Press" - i.e. the business with the release of the "filing" allegedly ahead of it being filed by the Clerk of the Court?

    Fourth, is this just another detour designed to make this as expensive and uncomfortable for IBM as is legally possible?

    Fifth and last, is this a completely different way to introduce "new evidence" after the closure of discovery and the same only merry-go-round we've been discussing for some time now?



    Whatever the final outcome of this case, no matter where the immediate motion goes or the final ruling after appeal [if any of us live that long!], one thing is certain. This case has taught me that for all it's good intentions, the law is a victim too. It has become a victim to it's own desire to be open and fair to all, and in so doing has allowed itself to be "gamed", manipulated if you like, at the expense of decency and ultimate truth. In the last 4 years or so I have come to develop a tremendous respect for Judges Kimball and Wells. I think they continue to strive to be even-handed, patient, cooperative and supportive of the due process of law. I just wish the legal system in which they work was robust enough, or came up to the same high standards.

    Hang in there PJ.

    Veritas Vincit. [Truth Conquers]...

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    More threats and extortion
    Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 07:36 AM EDT
    THis appears to be another lawyer produced attempt to harrass and annoy and
    cause financial harm to someone who they feel is not in line with their ignorant
    opinion. It is very easy for lawyers(with no penalty to themselves) to make
    claims against someone because they bear no cost that the one they accuse has to
    bear to defend their rights. Lawyers have little concern about who's rights they
    may trample or how they fund the other members of the club who the accused IS
    REQUIRED to use because the lawyer written rules say that a lawyer must be
    involved.

    This is not an attempt at fact discovery, but a blatant attempt to (with the aid
    of the federal courts) to bully and abuse someone who does not agree with them.
    And as lawyers they completely fail to see that they are doing anything
    unethical. (unethical toa a lawyer means the other side did it...)

    Think about it - a good lawyer is one who gets the murderrer off because of some
    stupid technicality when all the legally obtained video (from multiple
    sources)provides incontovertable evidence, and when the lawyer knew he committed
    the crime. And the lawyer has no culpibility when the slime walks out of court a
    free man and murders 3 more people. The lawyer was JUST DOING HIS JOB...

    There is little penalty for a lawyer using the courts as a tool for coercion and
    extortion as they are the club that gets to review the deeds done by the lawyers
    and why would they want to punish someone for doing something they themselves
    would like to get away with. And so we have a class of people who - if they have
    no ethics or morals - can do whatever they want, however they want.

    As a side note - don't ever do any work for a lawyer without having an ironclad
    contract reviewed by your lawyer. I know of several instances where a lawyer
    made a deal with a contractor for many tousnads worth of work and then refused
    to pay because there was no contract and the contractor was stuck. And the
    lawyer could use the law to protect himself.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    If PJ really is lots of people...
    Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 07:42 AM EDT
    So if she is not a real person but a colaboration of IBM and the FOSS
    community, will we all have to go to the deposition? Where will they hold it?
    Will they even have enought time to ask any questions before the recording of
    all those present is completed? Will the have to negotiate terms with each
    persons lawyer? Can each persons lawyer appear before the court?

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    GPL in Israel
    Authored by: papafox on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 08:14 AM EDT
    The defence in the Jin vs. Ichessu case, in which the GNU General Public License (GPL) is being tested in Israeli court, has filed a detailed defence, which moves the lawsuit from the fast-track short proceedings option into a regular court, where arguments are longer and possible settlements are unlimited. More importantly for the free and open source software community, the case now seems to hinge either on interpretations of the GPL or whether the GPL is valid under Israeli copyright law.

    Here is a link to the article on linux.com

    [ Reply to This | # ]

      It might help to look at this from another angle
      Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 08:15 AM EDT
      If we assume the intent is to stretch out this litigation as long as
      possible. Then can SCO use this to get reasonable lawyer fees recovered from
      IBM and Novell.
      Just because SCO is going bankrupt does not mean BS&F will not try to
      figure out a way make more money.

      YD&S (young dumb and stupid)

      [ Reply to This | # ]

      The thing is ... So what?
      Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 08:25 AM EDT

      We know it's garbage. They know it's garbage (or are more seriously delusional
      than we already thought). The judges either already or shortly will know also.

      But let's say it wasn't. Let's say that Groklaw is the most effective IBM
      astroturfing project of all time.

      What does that get SCO? They haven't presented the evidence needed to win their
      "case". IBM's lawyers say so. The fact that Groklaw also says so means
      nothing.

      What would change if PJ really were an IBM mole? Zip, nada, nuffink!

      [ Reply to This | # ]

      Wise move,PJ. Keep bragging.
      Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 08:28 AM EDT
      May I suggest you delete this new article and pretend you never knew SCOX wants
      to depose you?

      [ Reply to This | # ]

      My Very Own Motion, Tra La
      Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 08:33 AM EDT
      Most of that filing, to my mind is fluff of the 'Someone somewhere on the
      internet said it, so it must be true' variety.

      To my mind the only substantive bit in the whole thing is the claim that IBM has
      been feeding Groklaw documents. Exhibit 18 and 19 are relevant. 18 shows what
      they call a file stamped but not public version and 19 is the public version of
      the same document. 18 is the version that Groklaw had, according to them, and it
      must have come from a source, according to them, that was IBM.

      <a
      href="http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&sid=2007040323314
      1649&title=Well+you+see+it%27s+like+this....&type=article&order=&
      ;hideanonymous=0&pid=552761#c552777">This comment</a> best
      sums it up to my mind what probably happened. It would be nice if we can verify
      this because it would be great to provide a whole lot of ammunition for PJs
      lawyer.

      [ Reply to This | # ]

      An angle SCO may have missed
      Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 08:52 AM EDT
      Regardless of their reasons for saying this what they are actually saying is
      that IBM set up Groklaw to help them defend against SCO's so-called lawsuit.

      In other words, IBM don't think their lawyers are up to the task of winning the
      case in court without Groklaw's help.

      Insulting the Nazgul - there's an "interesting" tactic!

      [ Reply to This | # ]

      The Very Real Danger to Groklaw
      Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 08:53 AM EDT
      SCO's attempts to directly associate Groklaw with IBM creates a very real danger
      to the site and its archives. By demonstrating to the court that Groklaw is an
      direct extension of the IBM legal team( which it is not) SCO will open the
      option of court orders to shut the site down, depose( harass) other participants
      and destroy the effectiveness of the site in disseminating information on the
      SCO and other MS cases affecting each of us. Recall that their stated goal is to
      get this before a jury and if they can create the impression the site taints
      possible jurors and that IBM directs the site contents it gives them leverage
      for all sorts of mischief.

      [ Reply to This | # ]

      Interesting IBM comment...
      Authored by: OrlandoNative on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 08:58 AM EDT
      Also an IP attorney's comment: Now, I'm not against the GPL, at least V2; it seems to cover the MORE IMPORTANT issues. However, GPLv3 goes far beyond a mere software license, and, thus, is not something that would be agreeable to me for my own personal use... ...business oriented or not. If I give code, I give code. I don't specify where it can run, who can use it, or what they do with it... ...just that they contribute similarly to what I did. As for patents, there are plenty of legal points that would cause problems for someone 'planting' patent infringement into FOSS software, redistributing it, then suing the users or further redistributors. And no license can really cover the issue of unintentional (or even intentional) patent infringement.

      [ Reply to This | # ]

      IT JUST DOESN'T MATTER
      Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 08:58 AM EDT
      Let's make a big assumption and say that everything in this motion is completely
      true. My question is, so what?

      Let's say they can prove that IBM has been funding Groklaw with $1M payments
      directly to PJ for the last four years, my question still is, so what?

      Say IBM did give PJ documents before they could have been gotten from the court,
      why would this affect PJ? It would affect IBM and SCO should take it up with
      them.

      I welcome the judges here, GL has a long and distinguished history and all of it
      is still here for them to see. I wish them well in reading all this
      information, in fact this whole thing may backfire on SCO. Not only will the
      judges hear IBM's portrayal of SCO, but now they will know how their arguments,
      motions, etc., are torn to shreds here.

      Stick to your guns PJ, the truth is on your side.

      [ Reply to This | # ]

      My Very Own Motion, Tra La
      Authored by: eggplant37 on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 09:07 AM EDT
      Hey!!! Where's my subpoena? I was at the hearings in the Daimler-Chrysler case,
      so obviously I must have been an Daimler-Chryler employee feeding information to
      PJ and Groklaw, and I need to be questioned about my activities to further PJs
      agenda.

      This has to be the most nonsensical filing I've seen in this ongoing saga. I
      would opin that neither Judge Wells nor Judge Kimball will let this fly any
      further then the closest wastebasket.

      [ Reply to This | # ]

      My Very Own Motion, Tra La
      Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 09:08 AM EDT
      Isn't it possible that the very reason for SCO to attempt to implicate PJ and
      Groklaw is to get said source gag'd regarding SCOvIBM?

      i.e., if you become part of the suit, does that not interfere with your ability
      to comment on it?

      [ Reply to This | # ]

      My Very Own Motion, Tra La
      Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 09:13 AM EDT
      Grow up SCO!

      [ Reply to This | # ]

      My Very Own Motion, Tra La
      Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 09:16 AM EDT
      I guess maybe I’m missing something here, but as far as I can see there's still
      no reason given by SCO, and no argument provided by SCO, on a key question,
      namely: why the close of discovery in the IBM-SCO case shouldn't control on the
      question of admissibility in SCO v. IBM of the prospective deposition testimony
      of PJ?

      I quickly reviewed the attachments (some wouldn’t open), and they all seem to
      refer to documents filed in the case over 2 years ago.

      Can someone here perhaps lay out a timeline of SCO’s conspiracy theory
      underlying this motion, one that shows SCO’s theory of IBM’s supposed
      misconduct, so that we can see how SCO imagines that whatever facts they are
      bringing forward now were not available to them before the close of fact
      discovery?

      [ Reply to This | # ]

      My Very Own Motion, Tra La
      Authored by: dan_stephans on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 09:23 AM EDT
      No one tried to serve me that I knew about.

      *rolls eyes*

      You would be the only one then out of all the groklaw readers that wasn't aware of this. Sorry, the well timed illness and ignorance claim is not passing my sniff test.

      [ Reply to This | # ]

      Wrong on many levels
      Authored by: mlwmohawk on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 09:39 AM EDT
      While I have some sympathy for SCO about all their plans being exposed and bogus
      arguments debunked by Groklaw, I have some issues with suits that seek to
      silence voices and punish people for their exercise of their first amendment
      rights.

      OK, lets be honest here, there is no crime in being biased. We don't like SCO.
      We don't want SCO to win. We all have a vested and personal interest in seeing
      SCO go down in a huge and wonderful flaming heap of crap.

      It has been popular for those who would censor to say "free speech has
      consequences," that's just another way of saying screw freedom, screw the
      constitution, the Nazis have taken over amerika and we will eliminate your
      freedoms any way we can.

      Well, short of shouting "fire" in a crowded movie house, no one gets
      hurt here, there is no porn, and there are no national secrets.

      I see no real legal basis for requiring Paula to testify to anything. Even if a
      whistle blower in IBM *IS* giving her information, SO WHAT, she is free to
      publish it. That's what the first amendment was designed to protect.

      Remember the addage: Freedom is protected by boxes, (1) the soap box. (2) The
      jury box. (2) The ammo box.

      Groklaw is step (1) The soap box.

      There is something very big at stake here. "Free Software," is
      essential for the Bill of Rights in this country. The powerful corporations
      (with the help of members of the U.S. government) are working hard to control
      all avenues through which we may seek to exercise our rights with DRM, the DMCA,
      and technology. Free Software is IMPORTANT for freedom of non-corporations
      (people) in the digital age. SCO is a mere sock puppet seeking to eliminate this
      freedom so that our freedoms are either eliminated or privatized for corporate
      profit.

      [ Reply to This | # ]

      My Very Own Motion, Tra La
      Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 09:40 AM EDT
      It doesn't matter if PJ knew about SCO's wanting to have her subpoena-ed. She
      is under no obligation until the papers are served. And it is not her
      responsibility to volunteer herself.

      [ Reply to This | # ]

      Your book...
      Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 09:57 AM EDT
      Your book chronicling this case just got an interesting new chapter. Maybe you
      should be considering the movie rights :) Seriously though, it makes me sad to
      see American business stoop to this level, but glad that you will do your part
      to make SCO look foolish. This episode will leave a tarnish on all of the
      lawyers and business people involved in persecuting you.

      [ Reply to This | # ]

      My Very Own Motion, Tra La
      Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 09:59 AM EDT
      PJ, at the very least you should call Eben Moglen at the FSF and get him
      involved, even if he doesn't act as your attorney. Having Eben as your
      "backup" attorney would be a very smart and smooth move, I think.

      I would also think that the ACLU might want to join you, given your position in
      the community as a news "reporter" and commentator. Fifth Estate, and
      all that.

      Best of luck, and I pray that if you ever do get on the stand, your testimony
      makes the SCOG lawyers rue the day they ever thought of putting you there.

      [ Reply to This | # ]

      Published truths
      Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 10:16 AM EDT
      The earth is flat.

      (As per SCO interesting new approach to incontrovertible proofs, I can now print
      out this comment and later use it as proof in support of my claims. See as an
      example Exhibit 5)

      [ Reply to This | # ]

      Missed the date again!
      Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 10:22 AM EDT
      This was clearly designed to be filed on April 1, but they missed it.

      [ Reply to This | # ]

      Caldera and SCO funded by IBM
      Authored by: seanlynch on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 10:24 AM EDT

      Here is a link to a how-to showing how to install Caldera Open Linux 2.3.

      As you can clearly see this how-to is published on an ibiblio supported website!

      This is proof positive that Caldera and SCO are mere pawns of IBM. After all IBM, along with thousands of other companies have donated money in support of ibiblio and its hosting services.

      BS&F lawyers should immediately depose SCO CEO Darl McBride. As this how-to clearly shows McBride is an IBM supported stooge who has benefited from Ibiblio's services and is clearly a double agent sent to undermine SCO's efforts in this lawsuit. McBride and all others at SCO who were part of Caldera are , obviously, part of the anti-SCO conspiracy, and should be deposed to learn how much more of IBM's underhanded funding they have directly benefited from.

      Just how deep this conspiracy goes can only be determined if BS&F acts quickly to depose all SCO employees who have ever been connected to Caldera or ibilio in any tenuous way!

      [ Reply to This | # ]

      My Very Own Motion, Tra La
      Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 10:29 AM EDT
      "her desire to keep her life private is entirely understandable"

      Her desire for a private life doesn't even need to be understandable. It's her
      right; no further understanding or reason required.

      [ Reply to This | # ]

      Every Groklaw reader is being Subpeona'd!
      Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 10:35 AM EDT
      Well you know this is entry is a joke right?
      no? then you need to smarten up.

      If they did (which they can't), it's just be yet another way SCO would attempt
      to drag this out forever.

      If no one has paid attention, everything they've done is classic pure "pump
      and dump" schemes.

      This isn't about the court, or legal rights, or rights of any kind, or even
      about who's right or wrong, or even about code, or copyrights, or whatever else
      you might think of...

      It's a pump and dump scheme. pure and simple.

      The longer they can go, the more stock they can pump and dump.

      The more crazy antics they do, the more press they get.

      Good or bad press means higher stock prices. this is a known fact. Any press is
      good press, even if it's bad press. it's still good.

      So someday in the future, they'll have pumped and dumped as much as they can, or
      they'll finally get shut down, either way, they'll be long gone, having made
      their hundreds of millions of dollars.

      and off they'll go with their riches, totally untouchable. yes totally.

      and there's nothing anyone can do. it's been done before.

      [ Reply to This | # ]

      Four hings about this motion
      Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 10:38 AM EDT
      PJ you have my sympathy.

      But let's put that to one side for a moment, and talk about this particular
      motion.

      1. As others have remarked, this motion seeks to re-open fact discovery in the
      IBM case, over a year after it closed. As far as I can tell, SCO have made no
      attempt at even justifying why fact discovery in IBM should be reopened.

      2. I can't actually see why anything in this deposition could be conceivably
      relevant to any allegation in SCO vs IBM. (I can see why it might arguably be
      relevant to SCO vs Novell since there are allegations of excessive publication
      in the Slander of Title case). What claim or defense is this deposition is
      supposed to relate to in SCO vs IBM? As far as I can tell, SCO have made no
      attempt at even justifying the deposition's relevance to SCO vs IBM. This is
      surprising since they want to reopen discovery in SCO vs IBM to do this
      deposition.

      3. SCO started this subpeona process in SCO vs Novell in late January. We are
      now in April. Why did they wait until April until asking to add the deposition
      to the SCO vs IBM case? Even if you give SCO #1 and #2, they haven't even
      tried to justify that either.

      4. If you look at the motion itself, it mostly points just to the memo and as
      for the relief in the memo, for the reasons set forth in the memo. I believe
      that it may be technically deficient (as perhaps one or two other recent SCO
      motion's may be). Motions are supposed to say what relief is sought, and what
      FRCP rules are the basis for the claimed relief. This is not a mere technical
      point (as IBM have said in response to a previous SCO motion), because without
      this nobody knows for sure what they are arguing about, or what is supposed to
      happen if the moving party (SCO in this case) win the motion.


      Quatermass
      IANAL IMHO etc.

      [ Reply to This | # ]

      March 31 has come and gone
      Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 10:39 AM EDT
      According to this document, the discovery in SCO v. Novell was extended to March
      31 so that SCO could depose PJ. If they failed to serve her and depose her by
      that date, then isn't this motion meaningless? Since there is no deposition of
      PJ in the Novell case, how can they include it as part of the IBM case?

      Or is that what PJ can't tell us about yet?

      [ Reply to This | # ]

      Where's the original?
      Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 10:46 AM EDT
      This filing is a redacted version of a memorandum previously filed under seal.
      Is there a Pacer entry for the original filing? If so, what was the date?

      This redacted memorandum is numbered 1018, yet the IBM timeline page ends at
      document number 969. Where are all of the recent filings from the IBM case?

      [ Reply to This | # ]

      Cool Groklaw is ibiblio :)
      Authored by: tinkerghost on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 10:50 AM EDT

      SCO says so in their motion:

      Indeed, Wall Street Journal reporter Dan Lyons recently reported on his website that, according to his sources, OSDL paid '$40,000 - $50,000' to Groklaw between late 2005 and early 2006.

      Um as I recall that money went to ibiblio not to Groklaw. PJ correct me if I'm wrong there.

      The big issue is that whether the money went to ibiblio or Groklaw, the way they worded the whole section is tuned to damage PJ's reputation - even if they stay just this side of libel. Money from OSDL isn't money from IBM, Novell or any one company. It's from an Industry Standards group related to the topic Groklaw covers - FOSS related issues. Just because SCO chose to sue most of the big names involved in OSDL is no reason to claim that doing their jobs is proof of a conspiracy.

      Novell has contributed heavily to OSDL also, yet - if the contribution went to Groklaw - it certainly didn't buy PJ's approval of the MS/Novell deal. PJ & Groklaw's stance that SCO is wrong was well defined prior to the date of the OSDL grant. Worse for SCO, it's a stance that developed gradually over the 2 years between the filing of the case & the contribution. A change in position based on the behaviour of SCO's management & lawyers, and the quality of evidence & motions layed out before the court. Moving PJ fairly rapidly from "It's quite likely that IBM may have done something wrong" to "If this case had any truth to it, we should have seen it by now. We haven't, so it's got to be smoke & mirrors"

      Finally, since when do you quote a reporter qoting an anonymous source in a motion as a piece of supporting evidence? That just seem bizzarr to me.

      ---
      You patented WHAT?!?!?!

      [ Reply to This | # ]

      My Very Own Motion, Tra La
      Authored by: markpace on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 10:51 AM EDT
      Might as well depose me as well. My father retired from, gasp, IBM. And I
      worked a very short time for IBM. My current employer is an IBM Business
      Partner. So any comments that I have made on this site have obviously been
      influenced by IBM.

      ---
      A change of pace.

      [ Reply to This | # ]

      This is a clear sign...
      Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 10:54 AM EDT
      This is as clear a sign that you are doing a great job. Unlike all other forms
      of press you are looking into the content of this case. You are been clear and
      professional. So much so they found nothing to call you out on, except their
      inability to read the date on a document in a case they should know something
      about.

      No good deed goes unpunished. By informing us you have drawn the fire of those
      that are gaming the systems and will stoop to any level and dirty trick. They
      don't like the truth which you so easily have brought to light. Therefore you,
      like all other truths, must be dealt with for this case to go forward. This case
      will go nowhere in the courts. It needs to go forward in the press. You might be
      preventing that from going as well as they had hoped.

      To be completely honest, I'm not sure what took them so long. I expected this
      long ago. And when the time came I full expect the judge to see this as the
      desperate act of company looking to quite the most important form of free
      speech.

      PJ, you have enlightened me, and us I hope. I now know much more about the legal
      process. Thanks to SCO I know how much the system, in it's fairness, is a
      failure. I now know that with deep pockets and a law firm will to do anything,
      as case can be forced to drag on and on.

      PJ, you never once let us down. In your time doing Groklaw you have done more
      than most free software programmers have ever done. I cannot thank you enough.

      I hope also that we will not let you down. Allow us to put money forward for
      your legal costs and we will. We will not fail you.

      Right now you are more the victim of a law firm looking to salvage it's
      reputation, now that it's a business partner with SCO(as some part owner, or
      something). They know there is no buyout. When SCO is gone they will need to
      look for work. From my point of view they appear to be failures at everything in
      this case, not even enough doubt to cause IBM to buy them out, which would
      profit the law firm greatly as I recall.

      We'll help you PJ, and while we do so, if they want to keep us quite we'll make
      one new Groklaw type site for each they shut down. I think we can, at least,
      promise that.

      [ Reply to This | # ]

      Help with Legal Fees
      Authored by: th80 on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 11:11 AM EDT
      I know that PJ might object to this posting because she is so darned modest....
      but I don't care!

      I'm sure all of you know that PJ is going to have legal fees. So I'm asking
      everyone who's a devoted reader of Groklaw to make a donation to help her.

      There are two ways of doing it, through PayPal or the Amazon Honor System.
      There are buttons on left-hand navigation menu with links to PayPal and Amazon
      that go directly to PJ.

      Let's all show support for PJ!

      [ Reply to This | # ]

      I envy you
      Authored by: skip on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 11:13 AM EDT
      How very professional you are.

      I don't know I could be so calm and restrict my statements so much if I were in
      the same position.

      Seems to me you've taken a leaf out of the IBM lawyers book. However, since you
      have always been like this, I'm probably wrong here, it's likely all you.

      I note that there has been no statement asking for help with legal fees. I guess
      that's another consequence of your attitude. Well, I guess it has to be done,
      best I get myself a paypal account.

      [ Reply to This | # ]

      deja vu
      Authored by: maco on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 11:14 AM EDT
      Lets see, when someone says something against you, attack them personally and
      viciously.

      Plant something in the news and later refer to that article as "facts"
      that support your case.

      Let's see - where have I see that before?

      [ Reply to This | # ]

      Kafka
      Authored by: jeevesbond on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 11:24 AM EDT

      Has no-one else noticed how Kafka-esque this whole thing is becoming? Am certain someone must have mentioned it in the past. I did a quick search and an 'e-book' copy of The Trial is available for anyone who wants to read it. It's a great book, similarity to this weirdness or not.

      I'm certain the ending of the book and this case will not be similar.

      [ Reply to This | # ]

      What of the rest of us?
      Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 11:27 AM EDT
      How many people have express their opinions on GL over the past 4 years?
      Shouldn't we all be called in to testify over our involvement with _____[insert
      favourite company here] with regards to SCOx??

      I feel left out...

      wb

      [ Reply to This | # ]

      Let me, please!
      Authored by: grouch on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 11:30 AM EDT
      If I claim to be known as "PJ", will I get dragged in for a deposition and get to tell what I think? Do depositions have language usage restrictions? The comment guidelines which PJ insists upon prevent me from expressing exactly what I think about SCOG. If depositions require the deponent to answer 'in his own words', I would love to get my opinion regarding the underhanded, morally bankrupt, dishonest, low-life, bottom-feeding, degenerate, dangerously disingenuous, greed obsessed SCOG-scum onto a court record in unmistakably disrespectful old Anglo-Saxon slang.

      The meanest, most despicable, most diseased stray cat should not be sentenced to the job of burying the reprehensible mess which the SCOGsters have conspired to deposit upon decent society.

      ---
      -- grouch

      http://edge-op.org/links1.html

      [ Reply to This | # ]

      Follow the SCO logic
      Authored by: pem on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 11:54 AM EDT
      SCO starts from the premise that PJ is "related" to IBM.

      This premise gives them the "ability" to supoena PJ simply by letting
      IBM's lawyers know they want to talk to her.

      They "prove" this relationship by some handwaving, press clippings,
      and the fact that IBM gives money to ibiblio.

      If the judge isn't paying attention, then SCO can "show" that IBM
      isn't playing by the rules because IBM isn't handing over "related"
      witnesses for SCO to interrogate.

      The prize at the end of this longshot is that the judge could order groklaw to
      be shutdown. At that point, I'm guessing BSF would have no trouble finding PJ
      and ibiblio.

      mathfox, keep those European backups running...

      [ Reply to This | # ]

      I'm staying hidden, too
      Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 11:55 AM EDT

      Part of what I've done in the past is teaching computer forensics to law
      enforcement.

      A few years ago I observed some guys "operating under color of law"
      - running a scam behind the protection their badges afford. They sought to cover
      it up, apparently intending to plant child pornography(!) on an innocent man's
      computer. The way it went down the bad guys knew it had been reported and that I
      was the source.

      Today I live in an apartment on the other side of a state line and I go a good
      ways north on state roads before I cross to the other side, avoiding the problem
      county. The menacing phone calls have stopped, my tactical shotgun is somewhere
      in the closet rather than leaning against my desk, and the primary player lost
      his badge but kept his pension.

      The pressures PJ face run much deeper than some inept deputies up to their
      eyeballs in a federal corruption investigation. She is wise to remain hidden. If
      that should ever change I think this community would easily fund whatever legal
      defense she needs and I rather suspect the nature of the wrath would run a
      little deeper than pithy comments here and contributions via Paypal.

      Darl & company might have a game to play in the U.S. legal system, but
      they've always been just inches away from a frontal assault by Free/Open
      software developers in every single time zone ... and bothering PJ might just be
      the triggering event.





      [ Reply to This | # ]

      My Very Own Motion, Tra La
      Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 12:01 PM EDT
      It is unfortunate that SCO made the mistake of making a personal attack on PJ.
      Before, SCO had to contend with exposure of unfavourable facts. Now it has all
      of that plus a hostile attitude - of PJ and all those who recognize the hurt
      those attacks caused her.

      Before the attacks, Groklaw exposed the failings of SCO's case through analysis
      and understated criticism. Now the criticism is blunt, there is a pervasive
      undertone of resentment against SCO, and PJ's replies to comments are often
      sharp and defensive. I am saddened by the hurt this reflects. I assign much
      greater fault to SCO for that hurt than for the spurious lawsuits.

      I cannot imagine what SCO hopes to gain by disposing PJ.
      Who has inspired it - SCO or their lawyers?
      If SCO, why didn't their lawyers say no?

      I see no legal benefit in either case as anything PJ can say is hearsay and
      won't be admissible. Can they aim to toture her so that she will drop Groklaw?
      I hope they are not so low.

      I had hoped that, although they cannot undo it, SCO would have recognized the
      error of their previous attacks. They seem to be attacking her again, and again
      for no reason.

      PJ - I wish you the comfort of your family and friends through this ordeal.

      [ Reply to This | # ]

        Not gonna happen
        Authored by: blang on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 12:13 PM EDT
        All that SCO ever gets out of this, is IBM's response, which will drown SCO with
        eggs on face.

        We must realize that the court is not going to wait forever to get this
        deposition. And if they have not served PJ, or don't know where she is, they
        must serve her as Jane Doe, right?

        And in order to learn her identity & whereabouts, they will need to subpoena
        somemone who knows here identity. And in order for that to prevail, if the party
        they subpoena refuses to give up her identity, there will be more motions. Adn
        while ibiblio might have had her prior contact info, even if SCO's motions
        prevail, it is not certain that for example ibiblio knows her current
        whereabouts.

        The judges seeing how unlikely it is that this avenue can bring important
        information, next to the likelyhood of SCO running out of motion, will not stand
        for having both these cases turn into "While we are waiting for
        PJ...". I see only one outcome: motion denied.

        It can take a very long time to exhaust this process to the end, and I suppose
        that is Brent Hatch's main purpose here. I doubt BS&F can be behind
        something as callous and retarded as this motion. Only a bone fide spawn of the
        crackpot Utah senator would put his name on such a motion.

        SCO has 2 immediate things they need to avoid.
        1)Remaining funds put in trust to cover Novell Royalties.
        2)IBM PSJ

        SCO is hoping to avoid both these things by drawing out the time with this
        deposition - which if taken will hurt more than help SCO. I hope IBM will make
        this argument, and get the judges to agree that this is what SCO is doing. I
        also hope that the judges will confiscate SCO's remaining funds, since this
        action is proof that SCO is very actively trying to blow the money that likely
        belongs to someone else. Novell already did that motion. The judge urgently
        needs to reconsider it.

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        A court order first
        Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 12:36 PM EDT
        There has to be a court order. Can we see it in Pacer?

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        Motion, Tra La...awkwardness
        Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 12:40 PM EDT
        Having watched and learned from this case, I find, well, some awkwardness in
        PJ's statements.
        1) "No one tried to serve me that I knew about."
        2) "No one informed me of any deposition date."
        3) "That is true."
        I find these three sentences, in a continuous context, to be imprecise, vague,
        awkward. PJ knows how lawyers can attack those three statements. "That is
        true" What is true? Sentence 1? Or 2? Or 1 and 2? Knew? - In what
        time-frame? "No one..."? How about (three) X,Y, and Z or BS&F,
        or maybe "two" or "several"?
        IANAL, but I am "pickey" and also on your side. Believe me.

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        Lamlaw chimes in.
        Authored by: hAckz0r on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 12:43 PM EDT
        There is an interesting blog on lamlaw which does not hold back much on his opinion of both SCOg and its lawyers. I just thought it appropriate to post a link here, since the judges in this case will likely read the Groklaw site after this filing has taken place. Their opinion of the SCOg legal team is likely to be quite similar, except perhaps after redacting a few choice phrases.

        ---
        DRM - As a "solution", it solves the wrong problem; As a technology its logically infeasible.

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        My Very Own Motion, Tra La
        Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 12:44 PM EDT
        Astroturfers / trolls seem to be out in full force on this one...

        PJ: Here's to getting the matter resolved w/o having to deal with SCO's harassment in person. From some of your replies to the comments it seems like you're taking it in stride and still in good spirits. Just adding in my voice of support for you.

        Quartermass provided some great analysis of the motion already, and there's a bit of fact checking on the things we can verify already done in this post by sproggit. Just as the community rallied to aid in defending Linux, it'll rally to aid you too wherever possible.

        -TomcaT-

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        deeming the deposition to be taken
        Authored by: stites on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 12:47 PM EDT

        "SCO asks the Court to deem Ms. Jones deposition to be one taken in this case"

        I think that this SCO request means that if the deposition is ever taken it can be entered as evidence even though discovery is closed. If this request is granted by Judge Kimball then to what advantage could SCO use this motion?

          Could SCO argue against, or appeal, the partial summary judgments on the basis that more evidence is still to come?

          If SCO eventually gets this deposition could they use it as evidence? When would the cutoff date be, beyond which obtaining the deposition becomes irrelevent?

        -----------------
        Steve Stites

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        Motion, Tra La...awkwardness
        Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 12:49 PM EDT
        Having watched and learned from this case, I find, well, some awkwardness in
        PJ's statements.
        1) "No one tried to serve me that I knew about."
        2) "No one informed me of any deposition date."
        3) "That is true."
        I find these three sentences, in a continuous context, to be imprecise, vague,
        awkward. PJ knows how lawyers can attack those three statements. "That is
        true" What is true? Sentence 1? Or 2? Or 1 and 2? Knew? - In what
        time-frame? "No one..."? How about (three) X,Y, and Z or BS&F,
        or maybe "two" or "several"?
        IANAL, but I am "pickey" and also on your side. Believe me.

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        My Very Own Motion, Tra La
        Authored by: theMutant on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 12:55 PM EDT
        While you have my most sincere sympathy, I wanted to just say, "Go get
        'em!" I am sure you will conduct yourself with all proper decorum, but I
        believe SCO just might learn what the expression "Hell hath no
        fury..." really means. What a colossal blunder in my opinion. I'll keep
        you in my prayers as you rip more and larger holes in their pitiful case.

        o)

        ---
        David W. Cooney, CNB (Certified Novell Bigot)
        IANAL

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        The elusive Miss Scarlet Pimpernel!
        Authored by: trekkypj on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 12:57 PM EDT
        Hmm maybe SCO are looking for PJ in those Where's Wally books?

        Seriously, this is a nasty attempt to dent confidence in Groklaw and in PJ by
        making her out to be some phantom fly-by-night character who doesn't actually
        exist. They seem hell bent on casting an IBM sized shadow over her - and I bet
        PJ is fed up of people questioning her existence.

        I suspect SCO have no interest in actually finding PJ, they DON'T want her to
        exist, they want to make Groklaw less credible by demonstrating that 'Ooh we
        cannot find a Pamela Jones anywhere, therefore she must be a creation of IBM...
        like Andy Dufresne created a person on paper in the Shawshank Redemption.'

        Of course its possible that Pamela Jones is a pseudonym so that she can enjoy
        some well earned privacy. (Though I don't believe this is the case) But I do
        believe that she better resembles a 'Scarlet Pimpernel' like person. As a
        blogger she can best serve this community by retaining her anonymity - if she is
        outed, she can be targeted more effectivly, maybe forced into silence by an
        injunction by SCO.

        And naturally PJ doesn't want to be hounded in her home by SCO either. Who would
        for heaven's sake? They're not exactly pleasant people!

        “They seek him here, they seek him there,
        “those Frenchies seek him everywhere.
        “Is he in heaven or is he in hell?
        “That damned elusive Pimpernel.”

        Finally, I just want to say that my first two initials are also PJ. SCO, if
        you're reading this, I challenge you to depose me. I'm a student in the
        University of Limerick studying a first year LLB (postgraduate. I'm 23, I come
        from Kilkenny. You should have no trouble finding me.

        I won't wait up, though.


        PJ if you do get deposed, I hope that it all works out ok. I'm sure we all agree
        that we back you all the way if they start throwing mud. (trolls aside, that
        is)

        I for one am cheering for team Groklaw. If this were Harry Potter, you'd
        definately be in Griffindor and SCO in Slytherin!


        ---
        "I am free of all prejudices. I hate everyone equally."
        WC Fields.

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        It'd be nice if PJ's lawyer was Merl Ledford III
        Authored by: tangomike on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 01:05 PM EDT
        To find out why, read this.

        ---
        Deja moo - I've heard that bull before.


        [ Reply to This | # ]

        Of course
        Authored by: jmc on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 01:22 PM EDT
        Back at SCO's own website they publish all the legal filings (including this
        latest) together with the "Swartz Memo"
        http://www.sco.com/scoip/swartz_memo.pdf but not the other one in 2002 which
        refuted it.

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        My Very Own Motion, Tra La
        Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 01:24 PM EDT
        The fact that they would file this is proof that the light being shined on this
        case by Groklaw is hurting their eyes!

        Keep up the good work!

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        Is it my imagination?
        Authored by: jplatt39 on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 01:28 PM EDT
        Or does it appear from the exhibits that tSCOg-sothoth is implying PJ is
        consulting privately with IBM on this case?

        If they are, what have they been smoking and can I have some?

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        Is this a 'Bicentennial Man' play?
        Authored by: TJ on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 01:32 PM EDT
        If you're not familiar with Isaac Asimov's story 'Bicentennial Man', it's the
        story of a Robot who wishes to be accepted as human and as part of this effort,
        over several generations, uses cleverly designed law-suits that fail to shape
        the definition of prosthetic devices being considered a part of what it is to be
        a human being.

        I've always thought this was a very sophisticated and intelligent use of the
        law.

        Bearing in mind the previous claims by apparent SCO supporters that P.J. is in
        fact a front for a bunch of IBM lawyers, if they can show P.J. doesn't exist (in
        their world at least) by being unable to find and serve her, could this give
        them leverage in other aspects of this or the Novell case ?

        [ In case SCO want to depose me to find out how I know their stragegy, my real
        name is 'TJ' :p ]

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        Another possible issue for SCOX in this...
        Authored by: James Wells on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 01:43 PM EDT
        Greetings,

        Let's assume for a moment that there really is a subpeona, and further that
        they are given permission to depose PJ, wouldn't this hurt SCOX case in other
        ways?

        1. SCOX is claiming that IBM, through PJ, is trying the case in the court of
        public opinion, however, SCOX has been doing the very same thing with their
        leaks to MOG, Lyons, the SCO legal site, etc, all of which have a higher /
        broader readership overall than Groklaw will ever have. Further, almost all of
        the statements that they made so far have been proven false, or proven
        irrelevant due to lack of evidence.

        2. SCOX is claiming that IBM, through PJ, is trying to pressure SCOX
        customers / partners to cease doing business with SCOX, though SCOX has failed
        to produce a new product, save ME, for the last 3 years, and even then the
        product they produced, was simply a repackaging / refreshing of their existing
        product line.

        3. SCOX is introducing PJ and Groklaw to the case, but by doing so, it makes
        the documents and facts, as posted on Groklaw admissible to the case, unless
        SCOX can prove that Groklaw in disseminating falsehoods. Which would cost them
        millions and re-open a number of coffins that SCOX cannot afford to have
        re-opened.

        Based on these, I have to wonder why SCOX is doing this, and even more
        importantly, I have to wonder if SCOX has really thought about how much
        potential damage this can do to them.



        ---
        "Individuals are smart, people are stupid" -- Tommy Lee Jones as "K" from Men In
        Black

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        SCO's legal team recycles "derivative works" theory..
        Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 01:44 PM EDT
        This is very similar to SCO's theory of "derivative works".
        If we apply a similar (il)logic to IBM/NOVEL,ODSL,Ibiblo, and PJ:

        IBM and NOVEL donated money to ODSL,
        ODSL donated money to ibiblo,
        ibiblo hosts Groklaw(and 1000s of other sites but we will throw them out of
        consideration, much as SCO did all the non IBM contributors to Linux),
        Groklaw is run by PJ,
        PJ is fair and unbiased and calls things as she sees them(not always as SCO sees
        them).
        Therefore IBM and NOVEL targeted PJ to recieve money so that she would continue
        to be critical of SCO's "holy writ".

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        Some tinfoil thoughts
        Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 01:47 PM EDT
        First, it's tinfoil hat time:

        What if SCO really doesn't want to find PJ in order to subpoena her? What if
        they just want to say that they are trying to find her? And then, when they
        "can't" find her, they will claim that it proves that she is trying to
        hide from them, and therefore their claims that IBM is behind Groklaw must be
        true? And therefore, that their slander of title case against Novell must be
        true? Viola, no actual evidence needed, all they had to do was pretend to try
        to subpoena PJ.

        Before you dismiss this as merely tinfoil hat stuff, notice that it fits the
        pattern of legal tricks and loud claims to cover up a total lack of evidence.

        Also notice that actually finding PJ and deposing her would destroy this neat
        scheme. What PJ said, that she didn't know about anybody trying to serve her,
        fits nicely here. SCO can say all it wants to the press and the courts, but if
        they don't actually send somebody to serve PJ, then they aren't actually trying
        to serve her.

        MSS2

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        Maybe this is my fault?
        Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 01:50 PM EDT
        I posted this earlier, deep in a forest of comments. I'm reposting it here for
        more visibility.

        I made a run to the courthouse once, copied some documents on paper, went to...
        I forget, either AlphaGraphics or Kinkos, who converted them to PDF for me, and
        I e-mailed the PDFs to PJ. This would result in PDFs that don't match the court
        PDFs. Unfortunately I don't remember which documents were at issue.

        I also suspect that I'm not the only one who ever did this.

        PJ can get my testimony if it helps in a motion to quash. All she has to do is
        ask.

        SCO can feel free to subpoena me - if they can find me...

        MSS2

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        Why not depose Dan Lyons, too?
        Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 02:03 PM EDT
        I think MoG actually did get deposed, but c'mon. He's not exactly an
        "impartial" observer, either. And he's disseminated *SCO's* claims of
        ownership plenty of times, which are clearly in dispute (otherwise, there'd be
        no SCO vs. Novell).

        Honestly, this is about as stupid as it gets. And if they wanted to depose you,
        why not simply ask for alternate service and post a message on Groklaw / email
        you?

        Personally, I hope they just quash the stupid thing :(

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        • MoG a "he"? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 02:05 PM EDT
          • Ooops! - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 02:17 PM EDT
        Time to $upport Pamela !
        Authored by: frith01 on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 02:04 PM EDT
        Although IBM's lawyers will probably tear this attempt to shreds, she will still
        be spending a lot more time with her attorney, which will result in a large
        legal bill.

        PJ is too polite to ask for funds directly, but I believe we should all donate
        to Groklaw to help support her legal costs.
        ("Make A Donation") link on this page.

        If I were PJ, and ended up being deposed by SCO, I would make sure to be
        wearing the brightest RED dress I could find.

        Kevin

        ---
        Never to Busy to be polite.

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        SCO Hater's Club
        Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 02:14 PM EDT
        Who else, here, hated SCO *well* before they even heard about Groklaw?

        Personally, I hated their guts the moment I heard (via Forbes, I think) that
        they were claiming to own Linux, even though I knew enough to believe that they
        were lying, given that Linux is openly developed under the GPL and there are
        plenty of @sco.com credits in the kernel.

        I didn't even notice Groklaw until the SCO saga was well underway, and stories
        started getting posted to Slashdot. After that, *I* started submitting stories
        to Slashdot, because I was incensed by the ridiculous claims SCO was making to
        Maureen O'Gara and Dan Lyons, among others.

        So can we get SCO to blame Dan Lyons or MoG for making them look bad? Even
        though the reason I hate them is because they're making claims I believe to be
        false, and acting like total jerks even if, by some anti-miracle, their claims
        could somehow be proven true.

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        Exhibit 6
        Authored by: overshoot on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 02:43 PM EDT
        Boy, Howdy!

        This is a keeper. As we long speculated, Judge Wells had comments on SCOX' attempts to try the case in the Press, and suggested that the sides agree to not comment publicly.

        Which, of course, IBM was willing to agree to in a heartbeat since they were already doing it.

        Kevin, apparently, figured that since SCOX was giving up its "mouth" then IBM should give up something too, so he propose a unilateral disclosure of all of IBM's non-testifying consultants. Which IBM was at least willing to entertain as long as it wasn't unilateral.

        Arguably the best part, though, was that Todd replied to a letter from Kevin McBride -- by way of a letter to Brent Hatch and Mark Heise. As legal snubs go, that's a classic!

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        Lyons Claims the "Entire Pack" of "Free Software Noisemankers" have been "Bought Off" by IBM
        Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 02:56 PM EDT
        Daniel Lyons's blog is cited as the key source of information in SCO's filing (see the top of page 4 in IBM-118). If you look at Lyons's blog (see IBM-188, I won't give him a link here), for the 4th of April titled "It's not just PJ by the way", you can see that he is claiming that everyone who is anyone in free software has been "bought off" by IBM.
        IBM has bought off the entire pack of free software noisemakers. This includes Eben Moglen, Richard Stallman, the Software Freedom Law Center and the Free Software Foundation.
        In other words, he is claming this isn't just PJ; he is claiming that all the "noisemakers" are in the pay of IBM. That's right, he is claiming that Richard Stallman is a paid stooge of IBM. It's all a big conspiracy.

        This is how Lyons says the conspiracy operates:

        Moreover, take notice of the way these mouthpieces leap in to fight IBM’s battles. eg, Novell makes a deal with Microsoft; IBM is furious and feels betrayed, since it put all that money into Novell a few years ago; and suddenly the entire FSF apparatus swings into action. Moglen and Stallman rewrite the GPLv3 to screw Novell. Propaganda PJ starts attacking Novell on her blog.
        It looks like PJ is in good company here. How do you get yourself on this list? I bet Eric Raymond is absolutely green with envy because his name wasn't mentioned.

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        Is this a jurisdictional trap?
        Authored by: Trollsfire on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 02:59 PM EDT

        In reading about this, one thing that occurred to me that I haven't seen anyone else mention (may have missed it) is that this may be similar to the Otis Wilson and Intel subpoenas in that it is something of a trap. I know, just being able to depose PJ is enough of a trap, but I am thinking of something else.

        This is a motion in SCO vs IBM about allowing a deposition in SCO vs Novell into the case. Others have talked about why allowing more discovery in SCO vs IBM doesn't make sense and shouldn't be done. That is IBM's responsibility to argue to the court.

        What I'm wondering is if this filing is to try and trip up PJ like Otis Wilson was. He filed something (don't remember exactly what) in the wrong court and thereby ended up not being able to quash it. Is SCO trying to bait PJ into replying to this motion (as a third party), thereby effectively accepting the subpoena? My understanding (from what I have learned here) is that the proper course would be to motion to quash the subpoena in the context of the SCO vs Novell case (from where it is being issued) once it has been served. (Note that we do not have a record of the subpoena having been successfully served yet.) To do things in any other order might preclude quashing the subpoena.

        The thing is, PJ might have to sit on her hands and not personally get involved in this set of motions (letting IBM argue against admitting the deposition on whatever grounds they choose) in order to preserve the right to attempt to quash. Even if this motion is denied, that says nothing about whether or not the deposition will occur in SCO vs Novell (but might limit what can be asked in that deposition?).

        Now, IANAL, so I could be off with this analysis, but I wouldn't put it past SCO to try and trick someone into replying to the wrong thing so that they can be guaranteed that the subpoena can't be quashed. Can someone with more background comment as to whether I'm completely off base here?

        --Trollsfire

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        Analisys?
        Authored by: ThrPilgrim on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 03:22 PM EDT

        Exibit 1: PJ joins OSRM :- Sems to claim, successfully, that PJ exists, is a single person, er is one human being, not nessacerilly someone who is single :-), and edits GL

        See Exibit 15 f

        Exibit 2: Is this Screenshot accurate. The version of the site I see does not look like it. Any way GL story about PJ's Health break dated Feb 10th 2007

        Exibit 3: Article from The Register. Quotes various sources, seems, for El Reg, to be well researched and balanced. Not sure what it proves though, apart from PJ does not read her e-mail fast enougth for them

        Exibit 4: Good morning silicon valley:- Covers the same ground as Exibit 3, however quotes Lucy Dalglish saying "It's a prety stupid move" about SCO's attempt to depose PJ

        Exibit 5: Oh goddy a set of comments on a blog. Not sure what this proves either. I wonder if SCO will try to supeana Cmdr. Taco next

        Exibit 6: Two letters. Both seam to show SCO's stubberness in the face of IBM's requests to

        1. Curtail the amount of public statments as requested by Judge Wells
        2. Share the names of non-testifying consultants as apposed to IBM jus giving up their list

        Exibit 8: List of OSDL members. I wonder when Google and AMD can expect their supeaners

        Exibit 9: List of members of The Linux Foundation. Strangly there seams to be some overlap with the members of OSDL. I wonder if they are related. I think we should be tolled

        Exibit 14: Press release 'Novell joins OSDL'. So have a lot of other companies apparently, see Exibit 8:

        Exibit 15: Story on Information week. Apart from a somewhat sencationalist headline. A balanced article claiming that IBM, amonst others, supports ibilio. And Groklaw is hosted on ibiblio because Groklaw meets the hosting critera.

        Exibit 16: Page from ibilio showing that most of their hardware came from IBM.

        Exibit 17: Groklaw reports on IBM's PSJ's. Article reprinted in full. Humm... If SCO claim the PJ does not exist haven't they just breached the licence that PJ dristributes her articals by :-)

        Exibit 18: IBM's Redacted Memorandum in support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Breach of Contract Claims, in its entirity + exibits. Filed August 13th 2004. Stamped by Marcus B. Zimmer

        Exibit 19: IBM's Redacted Memorandum in support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Breach of Contract Claims, in its entirity no exibits. Filed August 13th 2004. Stamped by Marcus B. Zimmer.
        Methinks SCO should be deposing Mr Zimmer not PJ

        Exibit 20: I'm sorry my brain's gone into melt down. Just what are SCO trying to show here?

        Exibit 21: IBM's unaposed motion to file amended counterclaims. Filed 26th March 2004 by <iledgable>. Has 123 scralled on the bottom right hand corner of page 1

        Exibit 22: IBM's unaposed motion to file amended counterclaims. No stamp no text scralled on the document.

        Exibit 23: Groklaw story IBM seeks declaratory Judgment of Noninfringment. Dated March 30th 2004. Humm After the document in Exibit 21 was filed.

        Glad I'm not the Judge

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        Its all about Blepp's briefcase
        Authored by: argee on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 03:28 PM EDT
        Remember the briefcase? The one that Herr Blepp said had
        "millions of lines" and "its all right here in my
        briefcase"?

        Well, then Operative PJ went to Germany, and in the middle of
        the night broke into Herr Blepp's hotel room (or had a
        midnight assignation with him where she slipped him a mickey
        finn) and TOOK the briefcase.

        They also want to ask her if she has seen the Scarecrow's brain.


        ---
        --
        argee

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        Why isn't the summons attached?
        Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 03:33 PM EDT
        It makes no sense that a court document would be sealed does it? The motion
        doesn't refer to it by exibit letter. It seems like if you write a motion about
        how someone can't be served you would attach the summons and detail the steps
        taken to serve....

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        No..... I'm PJ
        Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 03:42 PM EDT
        I think this calls for the well known game :-)

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        Dr. Strangelove & Lucasfilms meet Mitch Ryder...
        Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 03:47 PM EDT
        To produce SCO's latest single...

        <Chill Wills voice mode>

        What we have here... is a wookie with a red dress on!

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        SCO crack me up...
        Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 03:52 PM EDT
        They would have us believe that IBM, in an attempt to cover their wrong doings,
        set out to create a blog with the stated purpose of 'digging for truth', but
        with the real intended purpose of becoming so succesful as to attract thousands
        of Linux fans duped by the brilliantly clever words of the ghostwriter PJ, as
        shes pours through the facts of every document and transcript of the case, and
        turns each one of them on their head, thus causing the perversion of the course
        of justice.

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        • SCO crack me up... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 04:20 PM EDT
        • Pours what? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 01:44 AM EDT
        Intent
        Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 04:11 PM EDT
        Please pardon my stupidity, and perhaps this has been asked before, but since
        both the Novell and IBM cases are being heard under Judges Kimball and Wells, is
        it possible that this motion practice is being done simply with the intent of
        bringing their honors to the end of their ropes, and slapping BSF (and SCO) with
        serious fines or other sanctions?

        Why on earth would BSF and SCO want to do this to themselves? So they can
        either (a) go to an appeals court and claim judicial prejudice and misbehavior,
        and/or (b) get a declaration of mistrial and start the whole proceedings started
        over again (delay delay delay).

        Again, I guess I don't understand enough about the intricate details of the US
        legal system, but when you are desparate, even really stupid moves sometimes
        look more appealing than doing nothing at all.

        Just a thought.

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        • Intent - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 04:48 PM EDT
        • Flail mode. - Authored by: Jaywalk on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 05:14 PM EDT
        SCO has opened the doors
        Authored by: GLJason on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 04:15 PM EDT

        It's now time for IBM and Novell to depose Maureen O'Gara, Daniel Lyons and Rob Enderel. Unlike PJ's articles, which are based on publicly available court documents and examination of the evidence that has been shown (with an admitted bias), these people all seem to get their information from some "hidden source" (probably SCO). PJ's articles are based on evidence that has been shown while these people just puppet SCO's wild unsupported claims.

        Their articles nearly universally have an anti-Linux and anti-open source bias. Such as Daniel Lyons deriding the FSF for enforcing the GPL when Cisco and others were using their software without abiding by the terms. He made it sound like they were anti-business and would slow open source adoption in business. All they were trying to do was stop the blatant copyright infringement of those companies. No one is saying you have to use GPL software, but if you do, you had better abide by the terms of the license. What he did is basically saying that software piracy is OK if you're a business.

        I just don't think these people understand the GPL. It's not communism. It's not giving code to people that wish to claim it as their own and make money off of it. It's about people and companies that wish to have a better product, and to add to the product to make it better for everyone. They save a lot of time and effort by not doing work already done by others, but they must for their part help those people that helped them.

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        The purpose
        Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 04:17 PM EDT

        Like everything else Boies, Schiller & Flexner does, this is a much cleverer move than at first appears.

        Its goal is probably to shut down Groklaw - muzzle PJ. And it may work. PJ's own attorney will probably advise her not to comment on proceedings of which she is part. It's even possible that the judge will tell her not to.

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        My Very Own Motion, Tra La
        Authored by: Viv on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 04:28 PM EDT
        So! simple question? as they have made you a party to the case do you now get
        to examine all the stuff filed under seal?

        One would naturally assume that you would need to examine all of the case
        documents to make sure nothing interfered with your defense?

        I cant help but wonder at the foolhardy way they let a non friendly paralegal on

        the inside of a marginal case like this?

        Is this what they call a non accidental discharge of a fire arm in to a bodily
        appendage?

        ---
        Is it me or what!

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        Why will SCO's motion fail exactly?
        Authored by: devil's advocate on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 04:33 PM EDT

        Everyone seems to assume that SCO's motion will fail. I have read the motion and taken at face value it seems to me quite reasonable. They can depose in SCO vs Novell and the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure they quote appears to allow them to use a deposition there in SCO vs IBM:

        At the trial or upon hearing of a motion or an interlocutory proceeding, any part or all of a deposition, so far as admissible under the rules of evidence applied as though the witness was then present and testifying, may be used against any party who was present and represented at the taking of the deposition or who had reasonable notice thereof ...

        So please show me why it is wrong. It seems like a clever ploy to me.

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        Possible PJ Stratgies?
        Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 04:44 PM EDT
        There are a number of things PJ could do to help protect herself from
        unwarranted invasion of privacy.

        She could seek to squash the subpoena.

        She could oppose the motion on various grounds, but that would allow SCO to
        actually serve her, once she is represented in court.

        If she has a good pro bono lawyer she could seek a protective order to limit the
        subject of the deposition. a Legal No Fishing License.

        She could insist that the deposition be subject to the terms of the existing
        protective order and declared confidential and that SCO employees be denied
        access to it to prevent their passing it along.

        If PJ can't do it perhaps IBM and/or Novell could insist on reciprocal rights to
        depose other journalists who have publicly acknowledged receiving confidential
        information from SCO.

        I'm sure there must be other more creative ideas out there.

        ---
        Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.

        "I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
        Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        So someone supposes...
        Authored by: Marc Mengel on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 04:59 PM EDT
        So someone supposes, theorizes, or otherwise rambles on Groklaw that SCO might be considering serving PJ with some sort of subpoena, and magically PJ has been served? Is that their argument?

        PJ, are you sure we aren't allowed to use foul language or impugn the character of these folks? I'm sure itching to do so here.

        Notice how even here they don't mention with specicifity what process server or servers they employed, nor on what dates/times/locations these alleged attemtps to contact were made?

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        Please explain
        Authored by: Alan(UK) on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 05:14 PM EDT
        I just do not understand this at all. For all PJ and others have explained, I am
        completely at sea.

        PJ lists three documents sent to the court 1016, 1017, and 1018. 1017 merely
        states that 1018 has been filed with the court and a copy has been sent to IBM.

        After reading 1018, I conclude: 1016 is asking the court to accept the
        prospective deposition of PJ in the SCOvNovell case as being a deposition in the
        SCOvIBM case on the basis of 'reasons set forth' in 1018 and because the cases
        are 'related'.

        Now I would have assumed that this request to the court should have an answer.
        Presumably if you ask the court to do something, there is the possibility of the
        court saying no. IBM have been informed that they have 'more than sufficient'
        notice of the deposition because SCO happened to have failed to serve the
        subpoena when they intended to. If the deposition had already been taken before
        1016-1018 then the deposition itself could have been produced as 'reasons set
        forth' rather than 1018 which would be largely irrelevant.

        At this stage IBM do not even know if the court is going to accept that the
        deposition is relevant to SCOvIBM. How is IBM expected to know if it should
        attend? If it does attend, would that be taken as indicating that IBM accepts
        that the deposition is relevant to SCOvIBM.

        What questions are SCO allowed to ask PJ? Are they allowed to require PJ to
        answer questions not relevant to SCOvNovell on the basis that they hope that the
        court accepts the deposition in SCOvIBM as well? Surely if they took a
        deposition in respect of SCOvNovell and it turned up something relevant to
        SCOvIBM, then is the time to ask the court to allow a further deposition of PJ
        with respect to that case? Alternatively, they could just ask the court for time
        to depose PJ in respect of SCOvIBM anyway.

        My next concern is the scurrilous nature of 1018 and the apparent lack of legal
        knowledge (I am basing the latter on previous comments, IANAL) on the part of
        the author(s). Are there any standards of decency that lawyers are required to
        maintain in privileged documents? Is it acceptable to present such a farrago of
        heresay, inuendo, and lies as are contained in 1018 as 'evidence' to the court.
        This seems to be a four-cornered (at least) thing involving the court, SCO,
        IBM, and PJ. Presumably IBM is allowed to give its version of events, but as
        they have no knowledge of PJ they cannot claim that SCO is making it all up.
        What can the judge actually do if he suspects that he is being lied to?

        In the circumstances, could the judge just say, 'no', to SCO's request on the
        grounds that it is too late. SCO has already got the request for reconsideration
        written as well as re-re-re...

        ---
        Microsoft is nailing up its own coffin from the inside.

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        Two Questions
        Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 05:23 PM EDT
        1. Does SCO ever really say why it is important that PJ be deposed? ie how does this relate to the case?

        2. When SCO files this motion, it seems obvious that all the material in Groklaw is going to be made known to all players, including the judges. Wouldn't most of this material like the UNIX timelines, and the book lists be damaging to SCO's case?

        Why is SCO doing this?

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        SCO's wisdom
        Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 05:29 PM EDT
        > I certainly have nothing to tell them that is relevant
        >to this litigation.

        My reading of SCO is that they believe that:
        1) IBM hurt their business relationships.
        2) Groklaw is financed by IBM.
        3) Groklaw hurt SCO's business.

        IMO 1 may be true, 2 is not true, and 3 is very true.

        SCO is angry, and it now looks like the rabbit that beat
        the tar baby pretty hard. It is not very logical, but it
        is a way to show a great deal of anger.

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        • SCO's wisdom - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 05:52 PM EDT
        Masterful strategy - poor execution
        Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 05:30 PM EDT
        It was a masterful legal strategy with poor implementation, which is to be
        expected from BSF.

        Underling: We can't find her.
        Boies: Doesn't matter. File a request to include her deposition in the IBM
        case. Say how it isn't necessary to physically serve the subpoena. When she
        responds to the IBM filing we can argue that she has received the subpoena and
        use her response as receipt.
        Underling: Right, sir!

        ...

        Boies: You idiot! You were supposed to include the subpoena in the motion!

        PJ: Be careful what you read.

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        Overlength Reply Time
        Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 05:32 PM EDT
        PJ,

        Please file a request to file an overlength memo in response, and then, you
        guessed it,

        INCLUDE ALL 3,000+ OF YOUR ARTICLES

        in your response, just to get them on the record in Judge Kimball's court.

        :-)

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        What do SCO stand to gain?
        Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 05:51 PM EDT
        Assume all of SCO's dreams come true, and it is conclusively proved that Groklaw
        is an IBM-run astroturf campaign.*

        What then? In what way would this aid SCO's case against Novell? Would it aid
        their interference claim against IBM? Even if it would aid their interference
        claim, surely it is way way too late for that?

        If IBM did send lawyers to the PJ deposition, would this in some way legitimize
        its inclusion in the IBM case?

        * IBM: My charge is $100/hr, charged by the quarter hour or part thereof, so you
        owe me $25 for this posting. As you run Groklaw, you can use the web server
        records to find out who I am to pay me. Thanks.

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        Anti-SLAPP?
        Authored by: wordsofwonder on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 05:56 PM EDT
        I'm not sure in which jurisdiction an attempt to depose PJ would be argued, but I wonder if whichever jurisdiction that happens to be is one that has an Anti-SLAPP< /a> statute on the books. If they do, it seems this kind of craziness would be ripe for an anti-SLAPP motion.

        Just thinking out loud, and doubtless something PJ's already considered.

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        Watch what you say
        Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 06:11 PM EDT
        Everyone better watch what they say. You will probably be sopoena'd by SCO.

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        My Very Own Motion, Tra La
        Authored by: th80 on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 06:13 PM EDT
        Wrong again... I'm PJ using the alias th80.

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        Idiot Wind
        Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 06:31 PM EDT
        "Someones got it in for me.
        They are planting stories in the press.
        Whoever it is I wish they would cut it out quick.
        Wether they will I can only guess."

        Blood On The Tracks
        Bob Dylan

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        Ummm, those exhibits support SCO's side?
        Authored by: Crocodile_Dundee on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 07:33 PM EDT
        First, some admissions:

        1) I am not, and never have been an IBM employee, although I did enter one of
        their office buildings about 25 years ago.

        2) I am not involved in this litigation in any way, although I have sat in the
        courtroom once (and quietly chortled).

        I have read the first 6 of these exhibits and I am left wondering if IBM
        secretly replaced SCOs exhibits with their own. If I were SCO, I would have
        thought that hand-delivering to the judge a set of independently written
        articles, all managing to (in their own way) poke fun at SCO would not be the
        sort of thing you would normally do.

        At the very least they should give Judge Kimbal something to chuckle about
        (although I'm sure he'll do it in private :-).

        If you're reading this Judge Kimbal... *waves* G'day from Australia.

        ---
        ---
        That's not a law suit. *THIS* is a law suit!

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        It All Comes Down To PJ.
        Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 07:36 PM EDT
        After years of discovery,
        briefcases full of mysterious mountains of code,
        MIT Deep Divers,
        IBM being forced to do 1000s of man hours of data retrieval,
        Rochkind perusing the CMVC for ONLY 300 hours or so,
        Uncounted Over-Length Motions,
        Renewed Renewed Motions,
        Oceans of Calamine Lotion..

        It all comes down to SCO needing to depose PJ in order to
        shore up their stock, er, case.

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        Post SCO
        Authored by: hopbine on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 08:21 PM EDT
        This one topic has given more replies than any other so far - very interesting.
        I have never worked for IBM, although I once did a service call at one of the
        their facilities in Canada (37 years ex-HP). Now that SCO is grasping at straws,
        please tell me , post SCO what else is going to keep us "glued" to
        Groklaw.
        Suggestions - Novell/MS, RIAA foolishness ?

        Keep up the good work
        Phil
        G

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        Eyes front? it's one hellova distraction
        Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 09:01 PM EDT
        apart from the harrasment factor, i'd say this is
        nothing more than:
        -a distraction
        -another ledger entry in their stock pump scam
        -another attempt to shutdown criticism.

        Isn't PJ/Groklaw protected by the free speech amendment?

        And while we're all watching this unpleasant skirmish,
        the real action is ... ?

        Personally, i'd attack with everything at my disposal,
        but like most things related to the legal system,
        the money you have the more justice you can buy.

        Charles from Oz

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        Ibiblio Linux
        Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 09:19 PM EDT
        I just noticed in one of the exhibits that Ibiblio uses its own version of
        GNU/Linux which they call iblinux. I know that since they are not distributing
        it, they do not have to share the source code. However, I was wondering what
        reasons they have for not sharing their home made distribution with the world?

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        • Ibiblio Linux - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 10:39 PM EDT
        • Ibiblio Linux - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 11:16 PM EDT
        • Ibiblio Linux - Authored by: reuben on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 02:53 AM EDT
        • Ibiblio Linux - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 06:35 AM EDT
        • Ibiblio Linux - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 07:20 AM EDT
        And so the stupidest lawsuit in the history of the world
        Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 09:21 PM EDT
        I'm not saying you're wrong, but that's an awfully high bar you've got there...
        Stupidest major lawsuit I'd readily believe. Even though my knowledge of the
        legal system and legal history is a tiny fraction of yours, I do wonder if
        things more idiotic could have turned up in the weird and wonderful world of
        vexatious litigation.

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        PJ, you are my new hero
        Authored by: AcousticZen on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 09:22 PM EDT
        This is one of the biggest loads of tripe, in a case full of tripe, that I've
        seen thus far.

        SCO complaining that someone would use the press against them? The same SCO that
        repeatedly stated, to the media, that there were "millions of lines of
        code" "literally copied" into Linux? The same SCO that said they
        would show these "millions of lines of code" during the lawsuit? Where
        are these lines of code? Even the few hundred still left in the lawsuit are not
        "literally copied", nor are they UNIX code, but streams, file
        management, and the like, outside of the UNIX core.

        Even being generous to SCO, there REPEATED media statements fall short of what
        is shown at trial at a rate of .3%. That means SCO's media statments were off by
        AT LEAST 99.7%!

        Judge Wells, Judge Kimball, if you have the endurance to have read this far, I
        ask you, in all judicial fairness for this farce of a case, to *please*, laugh
        out loud at the SCO attornies, and maybe, furtively point in there direction. It
        would restore the faith in the justice system of many of us.

        And SCO, please, *please*, subponea me! I once worked for a company that had a
        co-development project with IBM, in the '80's. And I find your lawsuit to be a
        joke. The technical aspects of your suit are so far wanting, that it is obvious
        to this engineer that you are merely trying to use the courts for FUD (and just
        maybe you'd get lucky and destroy the lives of millions, while you enriohed
        yoursleves). I also have a relative that once worked for IBM. Obviously, I have
        much pertinent information, since 1) I have personal knowledge of the initials
        "I", "B" and "M", 2) I obviously am in their
        employ, since I know who they are, and 3) I believe SCO, Daryl McBride and your
        whole lawsuit are a laughing stock, and 4) am technically astute enough to know
        that you are INDEED a laughing stock.

        You can find me in Florida. Of course, your competence tracking down people
        seems to be dubious at best, as does your ability to handle a lawsuit, lie
        effectively, and run a business, but hey, I gave you some clues.

        And finally, PJ, you are definately my new hero. My hat off to you. I can't wait
        unitl you are free to disucss this nonsense without legal bindings.

        AZ

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        Weak theory; Large holes
        Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 09:30 PM EDT
        One doesn't prove that a potential witness is evading service by quoting news
        reports. The proof is through an affidavit by the process server telling about
        his efforts to find the person. That may be in the redacted portions of the
        pleading but I doubt it.

        About the date stamp on Ex. 18, almost all District Courts require the filing of
        a couple of courtesy copies of all manually filed pleadings. One copy is always
        thrown in the press box. A Groklaw member could have picked up th early stamped
        filed copy there. Who knows? Not BFS!

        Why isn't the subpoena an exhibit? Didn't want us to have a chance to find the
        flaws?

        This is all a misdirection play. The Internet ruined SCO and someone has to
        pay!!!

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        Making sense of limited info
        Authored by: reuben on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 09:35 PM EDT
        PJ has chosen not to comment too much on this subject, beyond what's in the
        court record. That's a very reasonable thing to do, and I just want to caution
        against jumping to any conclusions based on the limited information we have.

        There's no reason to think that PJ has been trying to avoid a subpoena, and
        certainly no reason to think that her health break is connected to the SCO
        subpoena in any way. In the absence of information, drawing such a connection
        is just speculation and innuendo, and now SCO is using that speculation from
        other web sites as a way to smear PJ.

        Unless there's a reason to think otherwise, I think we should all assume that
        PJ's health break is really a health break, and that she would comply with a
        subpoena if SCO got around to properly serving it.

        From the few comments at the top of the page, it seems that nobody from SCO has
        done so much as e-mail PJ about a deposition, which shouldn't be too hard given
        the friendly "Email PJ" button on the left.

        Some day we will know the details. For now, let's not draw unwarranted
        conclusions.

        As a side note, what does all the speculation have to do with SCO's motion? The
        only point of the motion is to include the prospective deposition in the IBM
        case's record. All the extra verbiage about how some people on the internet
        think PJ is avoiding service looks totally extraneous to me.

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        This is very entertaining stuff - what a hoot !
        Authored by: dmarker on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 09:48 PM EDT

        tSCOg appear to be desperate to shut groklaw down - so desperate thst they
        appear to have used a scattergun approach (fired so widely that they hope to hit
        something in the target area).

        The nature and wording of their notice is extraordinary for its lack of
        meaningful evidence. Half of what they quote is based on garbage they fed to
        the journalists they use as references in their evidence.

        What an amazing show - the hide ! - the nerve !. Ahhmazing !!!

        DSM

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        Welcome Judges!
        Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 10:16 PM EDT
        Your Honors, although the readers of Groklaw have not seen all the evidence, we
        are pretty much convinced that:

        1. SCO (formerly Caldera) does not own the copyrights to SysV Unix.

        2. SCO has not provided any evidence of programs / lines of code copied from
        SysV to Linux.

        3. SCO has not provided any evidence that IBM copied code into Linux -- see 2
        above.

        4. SCO distributed Linux for YEARS after the START of this litigation (fact), so
        how can IBM's Linux activities possibly have harmed SCO?

        5. SCO distributed Linux under the GPL. Any copyrighted code in Linux has
        therefore become GPL's code -- by SCO's actions.

        This is probably the state of play right now, and we would be very surprised if
        the case takes a sharp turn away from SCO losing.

        But there is another, more important issue here. WHY? Why was this case brought
        to the court in the first place? SCO's own experts told the management that
        there was no copied lines of code. Why on earth did SCO continue?

        Conspiracy theories aside, what is going on here? Your honors, are your courts
        being misused in the perversion of justice? Are you being used in a cynical
        corporate game? Who is gaining from all this?

        With all respect, your honors, I believe you should look a bit further. We want
        the truth. I have a nasty suspicion that there is far more going on here than
        meets the eye.

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        Blink Test
        Authored by: sschlimgen on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 10:31 PM EDT
        Folks, check me on this, but I think I've figured out the significance of ex 18
        & 19, and it does not support SCO's supposition.

        The timeline as presented is:
        13 Aug 2004 - IBM files motion.
        16 Aug 2004 - GL publishes ex 18.
        18 Aug 2004 - Pacer publishes ex 19.

        SCO's contention is that GL's publishing the motion before it was available on
        Pacer is evidence that IBM is feeding things to GL. Much is made of the pacer
        number that is on 19 but not 18, and the differing placement of the court
        clerk's stamp.

        Do a blink test. Put ex 18 & 19 in tabs in firefox, line them up, and switch
        back and forth.

        Except for the Pacer # and the clerk's stamp, they're identical. Even down to
        dirt smudges and the slightly off-kilter "REDACTED" labels.

        18 & 19 are both obviously copies of the same original. Each copy got
        stamped in a slightly different spot.

        Now, I see several possible scenarios here.

        A. SCO's apreality
        1. IBM prepares two copies of the motion, one verbatim, one redacted (to make it
        easy on the court clerk). They file both with the court.
        2. IBM FORGES the court clerk's stamp on their own copy of the redacted motion,
        then slips it to their nefarious underling PJ, who then posts it to GL, beating
        out the Pacer version.
        3. A few days later, the clerk makes his own copy, stamps it slightly
        differently, numbers it and posts it to Pacer.

        Nazgul: Note how SCO is implying something about YOU, here.

        B. SCO's average orbit around reality.
        1. IBM prepares two copies, etc.
        2. IBM gets a copy of their redacted version from the court clerk before it's
        released to the public (maybe they bribed him to stamp it?) They then slip it to
        PJ, etc.
        3. A few days later the clerk, etc.

        Note: Hmm, hey judge! Now SCO's impugning YOUR people.

        C. SCO's perireality.
        1. IBM generates one copy of the motion and files it with the court.
        2. The court clerk redacts the motion to generate a public copy.
        3. IBM gets a copy of the court-redacted version from the court clerk after it's
        available to the general public.
        4. A few days later, the clerk, etc.

        Note: Nothing illegal here, and absolutely no reason to go after PJ.

        D. Reality
        1. IBM generates one copy of the motion and files it with the court.
        2. The court clerk redacts the motion to generate a public copy.
        3. Some random Groklawian gets a copy of the court-redacted version from the
        court clerk, etc.
        4. A few days later, the clerk, etc.

        I'm not surprised that SCO didn't pick up on this. Their legal efforts seem
        rather slapdash to me.

        PJ - I hope this provides some help in blowing this slimy offering out of
        court.


        ---
        Meandering through life like a drunk on a unicycle.

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        Unsolicited advice
        Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 10:36 PM EDT
        Well PJ, IANAL, and you seem to have found a lawyer, but if I were in your
        position I would look at counterclaims. Specifically anti-SLAPP claims if your
        state has them. Not to mention the mean and most likely incorrect things SCO
        has publicly said about you.

        I know you can't discuss ongoing litigation. But please know that you have a
        lot of supporters. I've been in an ugly lawsuit and I know it can be stressful,
        but it really helps to know that you aren't alone.

        Best wishes.

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        The Register has this to say ....
        Authored by: DodgeRules on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 11:08 PM EDT
        SCO tries to grok Pamela Jones (again)

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        Another idea
        Authored by: Sunny Penguin on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 11:11 PM EDT
        On the PJ deposition:
        We may be attributing to SCO malice what is really SCO incompetence.
        Someone did not get the memo, or recieved the wrong memo.

        Or just plain SCOpididity....


        ---
        If you love your bike, let it go.
        If it comes back, you high sided.....

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        Just more of the same FUD....
        Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 11:21 PM EDT
        Let me get this straight.

        SCO files a motion regarding a deposition of Pj that has never taken place.
        Further, it appears there is no evidence in the motion that ANY attempt has made
        to serve PJ, even though SCO has had months to do so.

        The conclusion must be that if SCO actually intended to have PJ under oath they
        would have taken action to do so already and would have evidence that SCO at
        least made an attempt at service.

        Zip on both counts. You guessed it: FUD.

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        As a decoy I might shave my beard and wear a red dress if...
        Authored by: edumarest on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 11:52 PM EDT
        ...it is necessary for PJ to have decoys when she makes her way to court. Of
        course she will be surrounded by many members of Groklaw.

        The Penguin in this case can do more than just nibble Linus' finger. A flock(?)
        of penguin's will surround her. Can you picture penguins in red dresses?

        I wonder if a separate fund should be set up for her legal bills? Otherwise the
        IRS may be tipped off and she has another problem with them. I would hope that
        she would post yea or nay on this idea. I will wait a few days, then pony up
        $100 for her legal expenses. Nay, it will be more like $300 or so as I don't
        need to buy a copy of Vista.

        ---
        A generation which ignores history has no past and no future.
        Robert Heinlein (1907 - 1988), The Notebooks of Lazurus Long

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        SCO case spawns new euphemism for legal desparation - "Depose the blogger"
        Authored by: dwandre on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 12:12 AM EDT

        If the law is on your side, argue the law. If the facts are on your side, argue the facts. If neither the law nor the facts are on your side, DEPOSE THE BLOGGER!

        Seriously though, this is a chilling reminder of how badly an unscupulous client and an unscrupulous attorney can contort the legal system and attempt to infringe an individual's right to publish comments on public documents. PJ, I hope your attorney has been working on a good motion to quash and all the best if you ever have to sit through 8 hours with any of SCO's attorneys. Personally I'd rather have another kidney stone.

        On a lighter note, there should be a contest for a new Top 10 list: "Top 10 new lows that SCO will sink to before they go bankrupt." Here's my candidate: "SCO sues BSF for unfair competition and interfering with customers, claims BSF's inabiilty to find evidence in IBM case hurt SCO's relationship with customers and other entities, including Groklaw; asks for delay in IBM case while it seeks new counsel." You heard it here first.

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        Is this a new Groklaw record?
        Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 12:42 AM EDT
        Twenty four hours after PJ started the article (12:31 ET yesterday), it has amassed more than 1150 comments. Maybe the massive outpouring of support in the face of the (attempted) harassment by the SCOGlings would be of interest to somebody?

        ---
        --Bill P, not a lawyer. Question the answers, especially if I give some.

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        On further reflection about this ...
        Authored by: dmarker on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 01:05 AM EDT

        Could tSCOg in there obvious (to the bulk of us) attempts to silence PJ &
        Groklaw, be working on the theroy that if they can get her out in the open, PJ
        will lose a lot of her mystique ?

        Often in history and in fiction, a person who represents the ideals & goals
        of many, gains greater attention & following by hiding from the 'enemy'.

        tSCOg have taken many near fatal hits from PJ's keyboard (all of their own
        making & there for PJ to exploit). Perhaps apart from the theory that
        getting her involved in the case may gag her, there seems a possibility that
        getting her out in the open can't do any more harm to tSCOg than her being
        somewhere in 'Sherwood Forest' shooting accurate and damaging arrows at them as
        they try to push their fairytale waggon down the open road :)

        DSM

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        My questions on deficiencies
        Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 01:50 AM EDT
        I'm wondering in just how many other ways, besides the obvious, that this is
        deficient. Here are the things that leap to my mind:

        1. If SCOX' contention is is that Groklaw is being funded and supported by IBM,
        where are the IBM depos on the subject?

        2. Out of 3,000+ articles on Groklaw, there's only one allegedly smoking gun
        that suggests that Groklaw may have an inside source at BSF and/or IBM, no
        matter how flawed that particular cite may be? (I realize they also cite the
        chain of donorship between IBM and ibiblio, but c'mon...3,000+ articles of court
        records, SEC filings, conference calls, and magazine articles, and they can only
        find ONE!?!?!?)

        2a. Given that that allegedly smoking gun is over two years old now, don't they
        fail on a timeliness issue? Also in regards to timeliness, see above about
        depo-ing IBM on the subject.

        3. If the issue concerns SCOX stock price, as another commenter suggested, isn't
        that an entirely new action, ie SCOX v. Pamela Jones and Groklaw?

        What other deficiencies or arguments to quash are here that I may have missed?

        bkd

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        The real reason?
        Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 02:26 AM EDT
        I had a thought about the real reason for this motion. I am not a lawyer and I
        am speculating. I am trolling for insight. I thought about what "The
        Belgian" had said. So I am setting aside the notion that this is just a
        personal attack against PJ or that it is more than that. I also ask myself
        "How will IBM view this?" I have also noticed SCO rumblings about
        unfair trade practices by IBM. Is SCO at risk of having their whole case thrown
        out before trial? Is BS&F at risk of being found to have misconducted
        themselves if there is no basis left for a lawsuit before trial?

        Could this be a plan by BS&F to avoid criminal liability by acquiring some
        post discovery evidence supporting a claim of unfair trade pracices by IBM that
        would make it past summary judgement and bankruptcy? Having this question still
        open after the receivers take over could give BS&F a chit to negotiate a
        settlement that would absolve their conduct of this suit.

        Love you PJ. Attacking you might just be a distraction and icing on the cake.
        Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        Where are those MIT rocket scientists when you need them?
        Authored by: darlmclied on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 04:33 AM EDT
        If SCO really believe that PJ is a team of people they should get there ace
        rocket scientists to analyse the articles, it should be trivial to spot multiple
        authors ;)

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        • Spaced out? n/t - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 08 2007 @ 10:12 AM EDT
        Novell's part in this.
        Authored by: kh on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 06:03 AM EDT
        Not to be paranoid about this but exactly what part are Novell playing in this?


        I guess it's not a big deal for them but how is it relevant to them? I suppose
        they are happy that SCO is wasting its own resources stuffing around with
        irrelevant issues but couldn't they object?

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        The story so far
        Authored by: mathie on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 07:33 AM EDT
        I sort of stopped paying attention to the SCO cases more than a year ago and
        forgot that it was still happening! I don't suppose, for those of us rejoining
        after missing out on lots of excitement, there's a "story so far"
        article available?

        Cheers,

        Graeme

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        Manipulation of public opinion. Where is O'Gara's subpoena?
        Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 08:17 AM EDT
        This will bring attention to the manipulation of media and public opinion in
        this case. Not by Groklaw as SCO alleges, but by SCO themselves. It is right
        there in this motion. And now that the cat is out of the bag, perhaps IBM's
        lawyers will start looking into how SCO has tried to manipulate public opinion
        through stories. Will we see a subpoena for Maureen O'Gara from IBM next?? Or is
        this game so ridiculous that only the SCO side will even attempt to play it.

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        My Very Own Motion, Tra La
        Authored by: heretic on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 08:18 AM EDT
        I can't for my life see a good reason for this motion. Why would SCO benefit
        from deposing PJ at all in either case? They, SCO, would only get very critical
        and substantiated facts about their case and the issues in the case. That is
        what Groklaw is doing; documenting (and proving) the falseness and lies in SCO's
        arguments.

        No, as others, I do believe there are other motives behind this motion. Could it
        be that they want the court to read Groklaw, and use the fact later on as an
        example of how the court must have been unduly influenced by the one-sided
        documents on Groklaw (approx 3000 articles).

        heretic

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        My Very Own Motion, Tra La
        Authored by: garbage on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 08:58 AM EDT
        Even _if_ there allegation was true (and it obviously is'nt) the immediate
        question is "so what?"

        Why would the judge care if a blog is pro or anti tSCOG?

        Seems more like a last ditch desperate act to disrupt the process of the case at
        any cost.

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        PJ Connection to Novell and IBM?
        Authored by: pscottdv on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 09:21 AM EDT
        PJ,

        SCO claims to have obtained evidence of "allegience and financial
        connection to Novell and IBM." You don't explicitly refute this in the
        article, although you have done so in the past with respect to IBM, anyway.

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        My Very Own Motion, Tra La
        Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 11:55 AM EDT
        Pj, your story is exactly like mine and the claims by the plaintiffs are
        virtually identical.
        Welcome to the wild wild world of frivolous litigation. I have some recent
        experience in that area myself. In 2001, I owned a domain name [Ray-Gordon.com]
        and agreed to point it to a website [which I didn't control and did't author the
        content of]. Apparently the business owner the site criticised took issue with
        the content and came after me.
        In the last 4 years, the business owner has filed four suits in federal district
        court for the eastern district of Pennsylvania, and now the last one [denied] is
        on appeal to the Third Circuit. The plaintiff is suing for $2 billion. That's
        right, billion with a capital B.
        The owner has alleged I am part of a worldwide conspiracy, a mafia, and is
        basing his suits on civil RICO statutes, the Landham act, Sarbanes-Oxley, libel,
        defamation and tortious interference.
        Unlike Groklaw, I didn't author the content on the site or control it, my only
        part in the whole thing was owning the domain name.
        If you have PACER access, the cases in this instance are NOS. NO. 05-2752 in
        PAED and NOS. 06-2246 & 06-4166 (Consolidated) in CA3. There is a sister
        complaint in the Delaware district court by the same plaintiff [C.A. No. 06-229
        SLR]. This is the same plaintiff who once sued Google for $10 billion.
        I have represented myself as pro se in all the cases where I am a named
        defendant. It looks like you might be headed into the same type of situation
        I've been in. Perhaps something in the cases in my situation might help you
        along the way in your own efforts. It looks like the errors and faults with both
        plaintiffs' pleadings and motions are similar in our cases.

        Just thought you might find the similarities interesting, and you might be able
        to use some argument or something from my cases as an idea in some way.

        Good luck

        OldDogAdmin

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        An Online Subpoena / Deposition
        Authored by: TheElf on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 12:04 PM EDT
        It is obvious that a great deal of interest has been generated in regard to SCO
        filing a request in SCO v. Novell to subpoena and depose non-party witness
        Pamela Jones.

        At the time of my writing this, there have been 1334 comments posted in response
        to the article "My Very Own Motion, Tra La".

        {is this a record for comments ?}

        PJ, I believe it is time for you to break new Legal Ground.

        Offer to host, on Groklaw, in Real Time, an Online Subpoena/Deposition Process.

        It would work in this fashion :

        1) SCO's attorney posts his/her question
        2) Your legal counsel responds online with an objection
        3) You post your answer (preliminary & subject to revision)
        4) The Faithful (Groklawians) comment on the above
        5) You respond to all the above with "The Final Answer"

        I propose this scheme because I believe it would serve all parties involved well
        and properly. And to SCO we could all say, "It serves you right".

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        • And ? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 06 2007 @ 08:08 AM EDT
        IBM -> OSDL + OSDL -> PJ is not IBM -> OSDL -> Groklaw
        Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 12:56 PM EDT
        Saying that IBM funds ODSL funds PJ fund Groklaw is like saying that if I pay
        taxes to the federal governement and the government pays the salary of a federal
        judge, and the federal judge pays to be a member of a health club, then
        taxpayers are funding health clubs.

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        Favorite Exhibit: #17
        Authored by: blang on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 01:14 PM EDT
        This is where Pamela analyses IBM's large filing that takes care of SCO's
        contract claims.

        Talk about SCO shooting themselves in the foot.

        They just handed Kimball (and forced him to read) the Cliff's-notes on what to
        do with SCO's contract claims.

        PJ makes a compelling case.

        Methinks this suicidal SCO motion will only increase the judge's eagerness to
        get on with the PSJs and send SCO packing. Plus they made it easy on the judge.
        If he agrees with what PJ says, well, there you go.

        And it's not like SCO can claim the judge has been influenced by the press now.
        SCO are the ones forcing him to read groklaw.

        Well done, retards. I hope Kimball does the right thing.

        And I hope Darl and Kevin takes that defeat personally. Because it is. They
        made it so. And I hope the mother of these 2 jerks, if she's still alive, gives
        them a solid beating for their harassment of PJ. Kevin McBride and Darl McBride
        have forever shamed their families. They are the worst kind of pondscum, and
        deserve any humiliation that will come their way.

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        My Very Own Motion, Tra La
        Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 01:17 PM EDT
        No!

        I am anonymous.

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        PJ - you're welcome here
        Authored by: vox_rox on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 06:06 PM EDT
        Okay, so you don't even know me, and I've only posted a few times. But, you
        know, it might be nice to be in a different country, just for a change.

        I'm serious. The Great White North is calling.

        Whatever you do, good luck with all of this.

        ---
        ---
        There is no such thing as strong coffee - only weak
        people.
        ---

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        My Very Own Motion, Tra La
        Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 06 2007 @ 09:22 AM EDT
        Congratulations to PJ for becoming a thorn in the side of SCO! I have followed
        your progress for some years now and am deeply impressed
        Robert

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        My Very Own Motion, Tra La
        Authored by: aha on Tuesday, April 10 2007 @ 06:27 PM EDT
        1500!

        Hey! 1500 comments!

        (;-b)


        ---
        You get what you focus on.

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        My Very Own Motion, Tra La
        Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 16 2007 @ 11:27 PM EDT
        Well, I stil remember the box of a SCO System V, version from 1990, saying:
        "..SCO a product of Microsoft..." and in the XX aniversary of COMDEX
        in Las Vegas, I ask about that to a SCO representant who say me "Not we are
        not MS..." (with extrage smile in his mouth) We use MS as our distribuitor.
        I can't belive that words, because MS never has a deal like that with any
        company. Is a lot extrange to see SCO on a Linux pavillion, and I think they
        were there because they prepare a fraud like this case. (Obiusly they wants to
        take the Linux OS for themselves but committing a crime against the humanity,
        someone donate it, they wants to steal it, because no one it´s the owner but the
        world it´s)
        Aparently to me, MS send SCO to destroy the unique OS who make a real challenge
        to them, all of this is about the revenge aganist the only two companys how
        makes real shadow in the past over MS. extange? not, is the begining, when this
        case ended the MS already takes the pice of the market on games, music, phones,
        etc. but no one to real can compete with them, because they destroy it.

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
        All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
        Comments are owned by the individual posters.

        PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )