|
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: |
|
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 | # ]
|
|
Authored by: leonpmu on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 12:54 AM EDT |
Over here -> [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: leonpmu on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 12:55 AM EDT |
Please make links clickable by using html tags ---> [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Very OT: article on the historical origins of informaed consent - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 07:32 AM EDT
- French train breaks speed record: 357mph (575kmh) - Authored by: billyskank on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 08:47 AM EDT
- OT: Microsoft Sued for Misleading Vista Marketing - Authored by: Steve Martin on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 09:58 AM EDT
- SCOX flatlined today?? - Authored by: LaurenceTux on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 11:28 AM EDT
- Off Topic Here - Firefox Smearing is Fun - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 03:43 PM EDT
- Microsoft calls on UK public to raise the Office standard - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 05:21 PM EDT
- In a Galaxy far, far, far, away... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 05:26 PM EDT
- Top marks :) - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 06:42 PM EDT
- Alexanders in court over the GPL. - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 05:32 PM EDT
- Vista is a Lemon (30 days with Vista) - Authored by: MDT on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 07:28 PM EDT
- Newspicks: "Commission publishes plans for EU-wide patent system" - campaign by Irish Tax Haven - Authored by: Brian S. on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 07:51 PM EDT
- SCO UNIX Winter Meeting - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 08:00 PM EDT
- Vista is dying - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 08:43 PM EDT
- Vista is dying - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 11:31 PM EDT
- Vista is dying - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 12:47 AM EDT
- Vista is dying - Authored by: luvr on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 05:18 AM EDT
- Vista is dying - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 07:38 AM EDT
- Vista is dying - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 04:26 PM EDT
- RSS - suggest that Pinned GPL entry is marked *STICKY* - Authored by: SilverWave on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 10:08 PM EDT
- A question or two - Authored by: Tufty on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 12:24 AM EDT
- Viral Marketing attacked by RIAA - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 01:56 PM EDT
- Slashdot article on the latest SCOX attack - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 02:03 PM EDT
|
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 | # ]
|
- Exhibits 18 and 19 - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 05:46 AM EDT
- The best revenge - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 06:08 AM EDT
- paingod: not in vain - Authored by: Aladdin Sane on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 06:48 AM EDT
- My Very Own Motion, Tra La - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 06:54 AM EDT
- My Very Own Motion, Tra La - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 10:07 AM EDT
- My Very Own Motion, Tra La - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 10:38 AM EDT
- My Very Own Motion, Tra La - Authored by: GafLinux on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 10:41 AM EDT
- How can this help SCO? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 11:57 AM EDT
- Hey, It Could Be Worse. She Being Taken To The Show, Not Going Herself - Authored by: TheBlueSkyRanger on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 07:12 PM EDT
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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: imjustabigcat on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 01:58 AM EDT
- Why not donate now? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 02:13 AM EDT
- I'm in for $100 - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 03:48 AM EDT
- perhaps you should talk to the aclu pj? - Authored by: giskard on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 04:04 AM EDT
- Support for Groklaw. PJ, et al - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 04:08 AM EDT
- My Very Own Motion, Tra La - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 08:35 AM EDT
- Can the EFF help? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 11:55 PM EDT
- My Very Own Motion, Tra La - Authored by: juliac on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 12:52 AM EDT
|
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
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
- Exhibit 20 looks interesting - Authored by: Checkmait on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 11:20 AM EDT
- 1+1=5 - Authored by: FreeChief on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 01:45 PM EDT
- 1+1=5 - Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 01:48 PM EDT
- 1+1=5 - Authored by: red floyd on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 08:06 PM EDT
- 1+1=2 - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 05:56 AM EDT
- 1+1=5 - Authored by: ThrPilgrim on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 04:07 PM EDT
- Also in the base 4 system. (n/t) - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 05:10 PM EDT
- No... - Authored by: Grog6 on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 07:44 PM EDT
- No... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 09:27 AM EDT
- 1+1=5 is true - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 04:32 PM EDT
- Exhibit 20 looks interesting - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 12:33 PM EDT
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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: minkwe on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 02:05 AM EDT
- My Very Own Motion, Tra La - Authored by: Aladdin Sane on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 02:18 AM EDT
- My Very Own Motion, Tra La - Authored by: Steve Martin on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 07:40 AM EDT
- i buying stock now in canes for old maids - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 12:18 PM EDT
- My Very Own Motion, Tra La - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 01:39 PM EDT
- My Very Own Motion, Tra La - Authored by: Yossarian on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 01:45 PM EDT
|
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 | # ]
|
- My Very Own Motion, Tra La - Authored by: minkwe on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 02:11 AM EDT
- Could it be ... - Authored by: devil's advocate on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 02:24 AM EDT
- My Very Own Motion, Tra La - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 07:28 AM EDT
- Was there a Subpeona? - Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 10:51 AM EDT
- My Very Own Motion, Tra La - Authored by: dmarker on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 11:29 PM EDT
- My Very Own Motion, Tra La - Authored by: PJ on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 06:44 AM EDT
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 04:19 AM EDT |
Seems to me they're just plain crazy. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
- Communications with IBM - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 04:43 AM EDT
- Communications with IBM - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 04:45 AM EDT
- expose IBM's organized campaign - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 05:27 AM EDT
- Communications with IBM - Authored by: Stumbles on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 07:14 AM EDT
- Communications with IBM - Authored by: Darigaaz on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 10:55 AM EDT
- Communications with IBM - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 12:20 PM EDT
- Communications with IBM - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 01:03 PM EDT
- That would just be silly. - Authored by: Jaywalk on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 01:17 PM EDT
- Communications with IBM - Authored by: walth on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 02:43 PM EDT
- Troll food - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 03:35 PM EDT
- White Star Lines Now Ready To Board - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 04:16 PM EDT
- Communications with IBM - Authored by: sclark46 on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 04:42 PM EDT
- Communications with IBM - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 05:43 PM EDT
- PJ received communications from IBM - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 07:34 PM EDT
- Communications with IBM - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 12:40 AM EDT
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
- And? - Authored by: jmc on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 05:07 AM EDT
- And? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 05:38 AM EDT
- And? - Authored by: jmc on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 06:02 AM EDT
- And? - Authored by: haegarth on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 06:05 AM EDT
- Not nescesarily - Authored by: tinkerghost on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 12:49 PM EDT
- And tit for tat - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 07:36 AM EDT
- And? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 12:09 PM EDT
- And? - Authored by: Oloryn on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 02:24 PM EDT
- And? - Authored by: tinkerghost on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 03:10 PM EDT
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 09:13 AM EDT |
Grow up SCO!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
- Who is sniffing? - Authored by: Winter on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 09:34 AM EDT
- She didn't say... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 09:41 AM EDT
- She didn't say... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 12:24 PM EDT
- SCOX can't find her? Disingenuous, dont'cha think? - Authored by: rkhalloran on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 09:43 AM EDT
- My Very Own Motion, Tra La - Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 09:47 AM EDT
- Timeline and proof - Authored by: mlwmohawk on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 10:10 AM EDT
- My Very Own Motion, Tra La - Authored by: Rann on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 10:26 AM EDT
- My Very Own Motion, Tra La - Authored by: mike_keighley on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 10:55 AM EDT
- My Very Own Motion, Tra La - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 11:12 AM EDT
- Sending Email - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 11:19 AM EDT
- Except The Timing's Consistent With PJ's Statement - Authored by: Simon G Best on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 11:57 AM EDT
- My Very Own Motion, Tra La - Authored by: John Hasler on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 12:10 PM EDT
- My Very Own Motion, Tra La - Authored by: tknarr on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 12:29 PM EDT
- Motion to quash. - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 01:57 PM EDT
- You smell the "Gestank of the SCO" - Authored by: turing_test on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 04:48 PM EDT
- Uh, Have You Noticed Something Odd, Mr. Stephans? - Authored by: TheBlueSkyRanger on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 06:42 PM EDT
- I served PJ - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 08:34 PM EDT
- Lessons learned - Authored by: dan_stephans on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 09:29 PM EDT
- Lessons learned - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 10:22 PM EDT
- dan - Authored by: sumzero on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 11:51 PM EDT
- Lessons learned - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 12:12 AM EDT
- My Very Own Motion, Tra La - Authored by: tanner andrews on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 11:07 PM EDT
- My Very Own Motion, Tra La - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 01:41 AM EDT
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
- Anonymous source revealed - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 10:56 AM EDT
- "WSJ reporter" - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 11:33 AM EDT
- Hearsay - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 04:45 PM EDT
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
- Kafka - Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 11:38 AM EDT
- Kafka - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 02:34 PM EDT
- Kafka - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 01:16 PM EDT
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
- However - Authored by: blang on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 12:22 PM EDT
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
- Seconded - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 01:01 PM EDT
- quartermass? where? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 02:06 PM EDT
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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
- Curtail the
amount of public statments as requested by Judge Wells
- 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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 03:42 PM EDT |
I think this calls for the well known game :-) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- No..... I'm PJ - Authored by: Stumbles on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 03:45 PM EDT
- No..... I'm PJ - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 04:56 PM EDT
- No..... I'm PJ - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 05:10 PM EDT
- I'm PJ, and so's my Wife :-) - Authored by: skip on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 05:38 PM EDT
- Actually, that's an idea - calling all PJs!! - Authored by: Peter Baker on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 05:53 PM EDT
- It'sss MY sssubpoena. MINE. Go away. - Authored by: mexaly on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 07:44 PM EDT
- We need PJ impersonators to show up in court - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 08:13 PM EDT
- Flashmob time? - Authored by: Peter Baker on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 04:30 AM EDT
- The name Pamela Jones - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 07:23 AM EDT
- No..... I'm PJ - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 07 2007 @ 02:03 PM EDT
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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
|
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
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
Authored by: th80 on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 06:13 PM EDT |
Wrong again... I'm PJ using the alias th80. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
Authored by: DodgeRules on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 11:08 PM EDT |
SCO tries to grok
Pamela Jones (again) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 01:17 PM EDT |
No!
I am anonymous.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
|
|
|