|
|
| My Very Own Motion, Tra La - as text |
 |
|
Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 01:23 PM EDT
|
Here it is [PDF], as text, mainly so we can start a new article. I don't know how many comments Geeklog can take without falling down, so let's continue here. You can look to the previous article for the exhibits. We have added links and corrected one of them that SCO had wrong, but other than that this is SCO's piece of work. Let me reiterate: No one came to serve me that I ever knew about. SCO claims that I left on vacation to avoid service. That is false. When I took my health break from Groklaw, I didn't go away on a vacation. I just went to bed and went offline to rest. That made me *easier* to serve. That isn't the only thing SCO got wrong. In due time, I'll tell you the rest of the story. Meanwhile, may I remind you that SCO has a history in this litigation of claiming it has subpoenaed folks? Here's where Intel told the court SCO was not being truthful with the court regarding a subpoena (document as text). And here's the Oracle fiasco. SCO's motion to depose was denied (hearing transcript). To quote the quotable Linus Torvalds, who is also not a front for IBM or a committee of IBM lawyers, but who explained SCO's litigation claims for us in a nutshell back in 2003: "I allege that SCO is full of it." That says it all.
******************************
Brent O. Hatch (5715)
Mark F. James (5295)
HATCH, JAMES & DODGE, PC
[address, phone, fax]
Robert Silver (admitted pro hac vice)
Edward Normand (admitted pro hac vice)
[address, phone, fax]
Devan V. Padmanabhan (admitted pro hac vice)
DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
[address, phone, fax]
Stephen N. Zack (admitted pro hac vice)
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address, phone, fax]
Stuart Singer (admitted pro hac vice)
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address, phone fax]
Attorneys for Plaintiff, The SCO Group, Inc.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
_______________________
THE SCO GROUP, INC.
Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant,
v.
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION,
Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff.
__________________________
SCO'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
OF ITS MOTION TO DEEM A
PROSPECTIVE THIRD-PARTY
DEPOSITION IN RELATED
LITIGATION TO BE A DEPOSITION
TAKEN IN THIS CASE AS WELL
FILED IN REDACTED FORM
[ORIGINALLY FILED UNDER SEAL]
Case No. 2:03CV0294DAK
Honorable Dale A. Kimball
Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells
Plaintiff, The SCO Group, Inc., respectfully submits this Memorandum in Support of Its Motion
to Deem a Prospective Third-Party Deposition in Related Litigation to be a
Deposition Taken in This Case as Well.
BACKGROUND
In the SCO v. Novell litigation, by
agreement of the parties, SCO has until May 31, 2007, in which to serve a
subpoena on and take the deposition of non-party witness Pamela Jones. The
prospective deposition of Ms. Jones bears on this litigation as well.
Accordingly, SCO asks the Court to deem Ms. Jones's deposition to be one taken
in this case, providing notice of the deposition to IBM and an opportunity to
participate if the company so chooses.
Ms. Jones is the self-proclaimed operator of an internet website known as
"Groklaw" (www.groklaw.net). Ms. Jones claims to have copyrighted and to
maintain Groklaw personally. (PR Newswire,
http://www.prnewswire.com/
cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/
02-04-2004/0002102965&EDATE= (Feb. 4, 2004) (quoting Pamela
Jones: "Groklaw is my own...") (Ex. 1).)
Through the website, Ms. Jones has reported extensively on and repeatedly
disseminated Novell's claims of ownership of the UNIX copyrights, as well as
generally addressed SCO's disputes with Novell and IBM since the inception of
those lawsuits. The content and commentary of the website (and other evidence)
show that Ms. Jones is not an objective commentator, but rather a vehicle
through which opponents of SCO have conducted their case against SCO in the
court of public opinion, where no gate-keeper monitors the reliability of
content.
SCO has sought to depose Ms. Jones to address, among other things, her
participation in Novell's and IBM's conduct toward SCO and the content of her
website relating to SCO. The notice given to IBM of the prospective deposition
by virtue of SCO's instant Motion is more than sufficient,
1
because SCO has not yet served Ms. Jones with a subpoena for her deposition. Obviously
aware of SCO's designs to depose her, Ms. Jones has neither accepted service of
the subpoena nor agreed to appear for deposition, but rather appears to have
fled and evaded service of the subpoena. Ms. Jones's reluctance to appear for
deposition in this matter is better understood in the context of certain
relevant evidence. Indeed, SCO has obtained evidence through discovery of Ms.
Jones's allegiance and financial connection to Novell and IBM, which
underscores her motivation to avoid having to testify in this matter.
On January 30, 2007, SCO's counsel issued a subpoena in the United States
District Court for the District of Connecticut, compelling Ms. Jones to appear
for a deposition on February 21, 2007. Since that time, a process server has
repeatedly sought to locate and personally serve Ms. Jones with the subpoena,
without success.
REDACTED
Confirming her obvious efforts to avoid
the subpoena, Ms. Jones announced on her website on February 10, 2007, that she
would be taking a vacation. (Health Break,
http://www.groklaw.net/
article.php?story=2007021013564542 (Feb. 10, 2007, 13:56 EST) (Ex. 2).)
Industry reporters immediately recognized that SCO's subpoena had precipitated
Ms. Jones's leave of absence; postings to that effect even appeared on her own
website. (See, e.g., Dan Goodin, SCO Bloodhounds Search for Groklaw
Author, The Register, Feb 15, 2007, http://www.theregister.co.uk/
2007/02/15/sco_foe/print.html
2
(Ex. 3); Posting of John Murrell, Where (and for that
matter, who) is Pamela Jones?, Good Morning Silicon Valley, Feb. 14, 2007, http://blogs.siliconvalley.com/gmsv/2007/02/where_and_for_t.html
(Ex. 4).) Similarly, postings on the Linux-Watch Forum, a website dedicated to
"keeping an eye on the penguin," extensively discussed SCO's subpoena for Ms.
Jones; her refusal to accept service; and SCO's approaching deadline for
effectuating service. (Yes, There is a PJ, http://www.linux-watch.com/
cgi-bin/board/UltraBoard.pl?Action=ShowPost&Board=talkbacks&Post=
239&Idle=0&Sort=0&Order=Descend&Page=0&Session= (Feb. 16, 2007, 03:01:06) (Ex. 5).)
Ms. Jones’s efforts to evade service
and her leave of absence support the long-held view of industry commentators,
for example, that Ms. Jones is connected to IBM's and Novell's arguments not
simply by the commonality of their expressed opinions of SCO's claims, but
also by financial ties. (See, e.g., Goodin, supra.) Additional
evidence coaffims those financial ties. Although counsel for IBM denied on
February 12, 2004, that IBM was "causing" any third party, "through funding or
otherwise, to make statements on its behalf about the litigation" (Ex. 6),
documents exchanged in discovery and other sources demonstrate that Groklaw
REDACTED
.1 Novell was also a "platinum" member
of the OSDL (http://groups.linux-foundation.org/
osdl_members/americas_roster (Ex.
8), and retains that status
3
since the OSDL
merged with the Free Standards Group to create "The Linux Foundation")
(http://
www.linux-foundation.org/en/Members (Ex. 9)).
REDACTED
Indeed, Wall Street Journal reporter
Dan Lyons recently reported on his website ("Floating Point") that, according
to his sources, OSDL paid "$40,000 to $50,000" to Groklaw between late 2005 and
early 2006. (OSDL Payments to Groklaw?, http://floatingpoint.wordpress.com/ (Mar. 27, 2007) (Ex. 13).) In response to an inquiry from Mr.
Lyons regarding the foregoing issues, IBM did not deny its knowledge of such
payments, or of OSDL's intent to use monies received from IBM towards
supporting Groklaw; nor did IBM deny that it knew the payments would in fact be
made to Grokiaw, nor that IBM expected such payments to support the consistent
and strident anti-SCO message that Groklaw was communicating to the world.
Instead, IBM said only: "IBM does not have any agreements or arrangements with Groklaw
or Pamela Jones. IBM, like many other companies, has provided funding to OSDL
in the past, and you would have to contact them about how that funding was
disbursed." (Id.) Given that Mr. Mauri of IBM was the Chairman of the OSDL
during the relevant time frame, IBM's statement
4
rings hollow, to
say the least. In addition, Novell has had a representative on the OSDL/The
Linux Group Board of Directors since 2003. (http://lwn.net/Articles/62243/ (Ex. 14).) Former Novell executive Chris Stone, who
worked with the OSDL for Novell in 2003 and 2004, admits in Mr. Lyons's piece
that "paying money to Groklaw 'would not have been a good thing for OSDL. OSDL
was meant to be above the fray, not investing in groups or web sites.'" (Ex.
13.)
In addition to funneling money to Groklaw through the OSDL, moreover, IBM
contributes to the site's internet host. Groklaw.net receives free internet
hosting from ibiblio (http://
www.ibiblio.org), an academic research project, to
which IBM is a major contributor. (See Paul McDougall, IBM Helps Fund Web
Hosting For Anti-SCO Site Groklaw, Informationweek,
http://informationweek.com/
story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=198100504, Mar.
21, 2007 (Ex. 15).) In fact, most of the servers on which Groklaw.net and other
ibiblio publications run are hosted on IBM-donated servers.
(http://www.ibiblio.org/systems/
hardware-details.html) ("This is a breakdown of
the production hardware behind ibiblio.org. Almost all of the IBM hardware was
given by IBM in the form of grant funding." (Ex. 16).) IBM's support of ibiblio
is, according to the project's director, continuing in nature.
Other evidence supports the conclusion that SCO's opponents in litigation have
been feeding information to Ms. Jones for publication on Groklaw. On August
16, 2004, for example, Ms. Jones posted for review on her website "IBM's
Redacted Memorandum in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Breach
of Contract Claims." (IBM Goes for the Jugular -- Files Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Contract
Claims!, (Ex. 17).) The memorandum that Groklaw posted was
file-stamped (Ex. 18), but was not the publicly available version. That version was stamped "232" (Ex. 19) and entered
5
into the Docket
two days later, on August 18, 2004 (Ex. 20). The memorandum entered into the
Docket would not even have been available for public use until it was so entered. Only IBM would have had access to
another file-stamped copy of the brief -- that is, the one they had file-stamped
by the Clerk and then kept for IBM's own uses. (Compare Ex. 18 (the memorandum
posted on Groklaw) with Ex. 19 (the publicly available version of the
memorandum).) In other words, the evidence shows that the brief Ms. Jones
posted on her website was not obtained from the Court, but rather from IBM.
The same appears to be true of earlier IBM filings. On March 26, 2004, for
example, IBM filed its "Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Amended
Counterclaims." (Ex. 21.) The memorandum that Grokiaw posted, at Ex. 22, was
not file-stamped at all. (http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=
20040330184527522 (Ex. 23).) Groklaw therefore did not obtain the copy of the filing
that it posted from the Court. Instead, Groklaw must have obtained a copy of
the filing from one of the parties, and it was not SCO.
ARGUMENT
The foregoing evidence establishes that Ms. Jones's testimony is relevant in
both the SCO v. IBM and SCO v. Novell litigations. SCO seeks the instant relief generally to preclude any
later argument that the content of Ms. Jones's prospective testimony was taken
outside of the SCO v. IBM litigation, and thus any later argument that
the testimony therefore is presumptively irrelevant. SCO further submits that,
specifically, the notice of the prospective deposition of Ms. Jones provided to
IBM hereunder satisfies the introductory language to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 32(a). That language states:
(a) Use of Depositions. At the trial or upon the hearing of a motion
or an interlocutory proceeding, any part or all of a deposition, so
6
far as
admissible under the rules of evidence applied as though the witness were then
present and testifying, may be used against any party who was present or
represented at the taking of the
deposition or who had reasonable notice thereof, in accordance
with any of the following provisions:
Without debating now the admissibility of any testimony that Ms. Jones may give
at deposition, SCO plainly satisfies the foregoing language if IBM is
represented at the deposition, which it would be if the depositions were deemed
taken in SCO v. IBM. In addition, this Motion has given IBM "reasonable
notice" of the prospective deposition. (SCO of course will copy counsel for IBM
on any further notice of the particular time and place of the deposition.)
SCO seeks the instant relief now, rather than after service on Ms. Jones and
the scheduling of a specific time and place for her deposition, in order to
avoid any argument from IBM that the company lacked notice of the deposition or
was not given an opportunity to represent itself at the deposition. With
respect to the relevance of the instant notice give to IBM, SCO will continue
to make every effort to timely serve and depose Ms. Jones, and indeed may need
to pursue alternative means of service with the Court, consistent with the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 provides
in relevant part: "Service of a subpoena upon a person named therein shall be
made by delivering a copy thereof to such person." Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(b)(1).
"Such language 'neither requires in-hand service nor prohibits alternative
means of service." W. Resources, Inc. v. Union Pac. Raifroad Co., No.
.00-2043-CM 2002 WL 1822432, at
*2 (D. Kan. July 23, 2002) (Ex. A) (quoting King v. Crown Plastering Corp., 170
F.R.D. 355, 356 (E.D.N.Y. 1997)); Cordius Trust v.
Kummerfeld, No. 99 CIV 3200(DLC), 2000 WL 10268, at *2
(S.D.N.Y. 2000) (Ex. B) (granting application for alternative service by
certified mail). Although the
Tenth Circuit does not appear to have addressed the issue, other courts have
held that Rule 45 does
7
not require
"personal service," but rather, Rule 45 is satisfied so long as "the manner of
service is reasonably calculated to provide timely notice." Green v. Baca, No.
CV02-204744, 2005 WL 283361, at *1 n.1 (C.D.
Cal. Jan. 31, 2005) (Ex. C) (rejecting challenge to service of subpoena
that was served by leaving copies at witnesses' offices).
Where, as here, a witness has knowledge of a party's efforts to serve a subpoena
and attempts to evade such service, Rule 45 "should not be construed as
a shield." W. Resources, 2002 WL 1822432, at *2 (finding Rule 45
satisfied where plaintiff left a copy of the subpoena in witness's mailbox and
delivered a copy via Fed Ex); see also First Nationwide Bank v. Shur, 184
B.R. 640, 643 n.2 (E.D.N.Y. 1995) (noting "that the difficulty in service is
often occasioned by the intended recipient's knowledge of the contents of the
subpoena coupled with a conscious effort to avoid its effect. Why should one
seeking to frustrate the legitimate ends of a judicial procedure be given
greater deference than the minimum demanded by due process?").
The evidence detailed above demonstrates that Ms. Jones has actual notice of
SCO's intention to serve her with a subpoena. Not only has it been widely
reported in industry articles, but it has been discussed on Ms. Jones's
website, which is dedicated to following these legal proceedings. Groklaw is
copyrighted and maintained by Ms. Jones personally. Similarly, postings on the
Linux-Watch Forum, a website dedicated to "keeping an eye on the penguin,"
extensively discussed SCO's subpoena for Ms. Jones; her refusal to accept
service; and SCO's then-approaching deadline for effectuating service.
8
CONCLUSION
SCO respectfully requests, for the foregoing
reasons that the Court deem the prospective deposition of third party Pamela
Jones to be taken in this case as well as in the related SCO v. Novell litigation.
DATED this 2nd day of April, 2007.
HATCH, JAMES & DODGE, P.C.
Brent 0. Hatch
Mark F. James
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
Robert Silver
Stuart H. Singer
Stephen N. Zack
Edward Normand
DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
Devan V. Padmanabhan
Counsel for The SCO Group, Inc.
By: [Signature of Mark F. James]
9
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Plaintiff, The SCO Group, Inc., hereby certifies that a true and correct
copy of the foregoing SCO's Memorandum in Support of Its Motion to Deem a
Prospective Third-Party Deposition in Related Litigation to Be a Deposition
Taken in This Case as Well, in redacted form, was served on
Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff, International Business Machines Corporation,
on this 2nd day of April, 2007, via CM/ECF to the following:
David Marriott, Esq. (email)
Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP
[address]
Todd Shaughnessy, Esq. (email)
Snell & Wilmer LLP
[address]
/s/ Edward Normand
1 REDACTED
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: wvhillbilly on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 01:34 PM EDT |
Yes, that truly says it all.
---
What goes around comes around, and the longer it goes the bigger it grows.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Cheer Up PJ - Authored by: Matt C on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 04:37 PM EDT
- Cheer Up PJ - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 06:24 PM EDT
- Cheer Up PJ - Authored by: tiger99 on Friday, April 06 2007 @ 07:47 AM EDT
- Cheer Up PJ - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 06 2007 @ 06:51 PM EDT
- Clearly these people... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 06:45 PM EDT
- Dangling disambiguation - Authored by: Aladdin Sane on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 07:47 PM EDT
- Its hard now but..... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 11:44 PM EDT
- What *I* think sounds almost like what Linus said - Authored by: billyskank on Friday, April 06 2007 @ 06:32 AM EDT
- Lines of code or; - Authored by: Sunny Penguin on Friday, April 06 2007 @ 07:50 AM EDT
- Lawyers are taught- when you can't win on the merits of the case, attack anyone or anthing else! - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 06 2007 @ 11:09 AM EDT
- Alternative view - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 06 2007 @ 04:17 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Sawdust Bytes on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 01:44 PM EDT |
| Place any corrections here. ---
Slowly I turned...
Randy [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- break I, I ... ---> break, I ... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 02:45 PM EDT
- infonnation -> information - Authored by: JOff on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 03:54 PM EDT
- Under conclusion... - Authored by: speedy314 on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 04:55 PM EDT
- Are you allowed to correct erroneous links in the PDF? - Authored by: ankylosaurus on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 08:45 PM EDT
- groklaw->grokiaw - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 06 2007 @ 02:19 AM EDT
- Significant change in wording? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 06 2007 @ 06:11 AM EDT
- Significant change in wording? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 06 2007 @ 07:39 AM EDT
- Significant change in wording? - Authored by: DFJA on Friday, April 06 2007 @ 07:47 AM EDT
- Sorry, I don't get the*significant* change - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 06 2007 @ 10:47 AM EDT
- Phishing? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 06 2007 @ 10:50 AM EDT
- Significant change in wording? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 06 2007 @ 01:01 PM EDT
- Significant change in wording? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 06 2007 @ 05:27 PM EDT
- Your Grade in Concern Trolling 101 - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 06 2007 @ 06:31 PM EDT
- Significant change in wording? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 06 2007 @ 11:05 PM EDT
- Significant change in wording? - Authored by: nuthead on Saturday, April 07 2007 @ 02:25 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: DBLR on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 01:45 PM EDT |
Please make links clickable by using html tags.
Thanks.
---
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is
a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
Benjamin Franklin.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- If you're still using Microsoft Windows, you will be attacked - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 02:15 PM EDT
- OT- Off Topic and a suggestion. - Authored by: Stumbles on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 02:17 PM EDT
- What is the largest number of comments on a Groklaw story? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 02:18 PM EDT
- OpenBSD steals GPL code from Linux - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 02:35 PM EDT
- Slashdotting - Authored by: red floyd on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 02:50 PM EDT
- wondering... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 11:03 PM EDT
- wondering... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 06 2007 @ 06:04 AM EDT
- wondering... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 06 2007 @ 11:00 PM EDT
- SCOX Volume Low - Authored by: mwexler on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 03:33 PM EDT
- Dan Lyons Fan Fiction Contest! - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 03:39 PM EDT
- My Very Own Motion, Tra La - as text - Authored by: brooker on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 03:55 PM EDT
- Meanwhile look what is happening in the UK - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 04:35 PM EDT
- Stuff being posted re PJ - Authored by: nessuno on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 04:35 PM EDT
- More on Pat Cox, Charlie McCreevy, Microsoft, the Irish Tax Haven, the EU and software patents. - Authored by: Brian S. on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 04:37 PM EDT
- Pat Cox was President of the European Parliament from 2002 to 2004. - Authored by: Brian S. on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 04:54 PM EDT
- More on Pat Cox, Charlie McCreevy, Microsoft, the Irish Tax Haven, the EU and software patents. - Authored by: Stevieboy on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 05:02 PM EDT
- Ireland held the Presidency of the Council of the European Union from January - June 2004 - Authored by: Brian S. on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 05:06 PM EDT
- Irish Subsidiary Lets Microsoft Slash Taxes in U.S. and Europe, Wall Street Journal - Authored by: Brian S. on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 05:40 PM EDT
- 13 Dec 2004: "Patent directive faces fishy future" - Authored by: Brian S. on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 05:55 PM EDT
- The Good Guys - The Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure - Authored by: Brian S. on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 07:24 PM EDT
- OT- Off Topic - Authored by: Stevieboy on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 04:46 PM EDT
- OT- Somebody please pull my posting privileges - Authored by: Aladdin Sane on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 07:38 PM EDT
- Is the latest SCOX move just a Red Herring? - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 08:38 PM EDT
- OT- Tesseract GUI for Windows - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 06 2007 @ 09:38 AM EDT
- Best day for SCO stock all week. - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 06 2007 @ 11:49 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: roadfrisbee on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 01:49 PM EDT |
There is no Pamela - but we want to depose her. She is a paid by IBM and/or
Novell so we want to depose her as a non-party witness. Everything reported in
the media is true, and should be considered testimony - unless it was us that
said it in the press. I think the "crack legal team" has become the
legal team on crack.
---
Without deviation progress is not possible. – Frank Zappa[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 01:49 PM EDT |
Your long standing reputation of honesty and truth have a lot going for you. Not
once have you ever predicted something because of the media, it was always from
your wisdom and the publick court documents. The SCO group doesn't have any
good kind of reputation . It is just the opposite in their case. Hence, I find
a great deal of reason to believe you.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 01:50 PM EDT |
Wow.. Expressing an opinion based on facts is reason enough to be summoned to
court these days? Yet they think it's ok for Daryl et al. to spread lies for the
sole purpose of creating FUD. I wish criminal charges could be brought against
these gangsters.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: DBLR on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 01:51 PM EDT |
Why did BSF send CSM a copy in redacted form and not a copy of the orginal? What
does or what is BSF trying to hide?
---
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is
a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
Benjamin Franklin.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Why ? - Authored by: Trollsfire on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 02:41 PM EDT
- spelling gestapo - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 03:57 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 01:51 PM EDT |
I know you can't talk about the litigation,but hope it will be soon. I can't
wait to hear your side of the story![ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Cant wait for the rest of the story - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 02:03 PM EDT
- PJ's side of the story - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 03:07 PM EDT
- Stupid question - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 03:24 PM EDT
- Stupid question - Authored by: PJ on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 03:27 PM EDT
- Elaborating on PJ's answer - Authored by: tinkerghost on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 04:23 PM EDT
- Elaborating on PJ's answer - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 04:42 PM EDT
- Yes, but... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 04:44 PM EDT
- And I don't - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 05:08 PM EDT
- And I don't - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 05:37 PM EDT
- Stupid question - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 05:36 PM EDT
- Stupid question - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 06:12 PM EDT
- Stupid question - Authored by: Steve Martin on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 08:23 PM EDT
- THAT was the reason! - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 06 2007 @ 11:27 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Jamis on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 01:52 PM EDT |
Having just read Mettler's article on the above, made me wonder about the events
of the last few weeks (months) in the SCO mess. Since BS&F's fees were
supposedly capped, and hey've most likely blown through those fees by now, it
appears that they and their client have left themselves holding an empty bag.
Have they finally realized this and understand that there is no hope to gain
anything from this engagement? Are we now seeing simply the last desperate
act(s) of a trapped and dying organism?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: DodgeRules on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 01:59 PM EDT |
SCO tries to grok
Pamela Jones (again)
(I tried to post this earlier, but I guess
there is a limit to the number of 1st level posts.)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 02:02 PM EDT |
Okay SCO, if you tried to server PJ with a subpeona, who attempted to serve it
and where is their sworn statement that they tried to serve it and failed to do
so? I don't see any of that information in the motion or the support
memorandum.
Sloppy, very sloppy.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Easy answer... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 04:00 PM EDT
- Easy answer... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 04:17 PM EDT
- Sneaky trick - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 04:54 PM EDT
- List? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 05:46 PM EDT
- List? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 05:51 PM EDT
- List? - Authored by: Weeble on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 10:09 PM EDT
- Even better - Authored by: LocoYokel on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 07:49 PM EDT
- Easy answer... - Authored by: Yossarian on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 06:55 PM EDT
- Rather... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 11:16 PM EDT
- Easy answer... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 06 2007 @ 12:11 AM EDT
- Easy answer... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 06 2007 @ 01:02 AM EDT
- Easy answer... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 06 2007 @ 04:05 PM EDT
- A very good observation - Authored by: TomWiles on Friday, April 06 2007 @ 10:59 AM EDT
- My Very Own Motion, Tra La - as text - Authored by: Darigaaz on Sunday, April 08 2007 @ 09:58 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 02:03 PM EDT |
SCO wants this in evidence for SCO v IBM so that it can use it as part of a
'dirty hands' defense against IBM's charge that SCO disparaged IBM's
trademarks.
If they can prove IBM funded Groklaw; and if they can prove Groklaw disparaged
SCO's trademarks; then they can try to persuade a jury that IBM was fighting
just as dirty with SCO's trademarks as SCO did to IBM's.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 02:05 PM EDT |
IMHO, it would be very nice if some means of indicting the approximate length
of the redacted text could be shown. This text version of the document gives you
no idea whether this it was a single sentence or multiple paragraphs that SCO
didn't want the general public to see. Of course, the PDF version is more
informative in this respect. I'm just mentioning it for the folks who are
disinclined (or just lazy :-) ) to pull down a copy of the PDF.
Just a
thought...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: spankmd on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 02:05 PM EDT |
Dan Lyons? Wall Street Journal reporter? Funny how his bio on his site (or was
that a generic blogging site that anyone can say anything on?) doesn't mention
that. And if you want another view, read the article I (an industry export and
technical reveiwer) have published at my site, Motleyblogs. IBM can use that to counter
the "evidence" Mr. Lyons presents. (And if you visit Mr. Lyons blog, please let
me know if you think he is either 1) Extremely bitter about Open Source: Did it
do something to his family or friends or something? or 2) Just running his mouth
to get attention: There is an awful lot of opinion as news going on there).
PJ, keep up the excellent work! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 02:06 PM EDT |
I don't know of any real industry commentator that thinks that PJ is a front for
IBM/Novell.
Unless I've missed it, even the braindead ones like MOG, DiDio, Lyons, etc
(which aren't really industry commentators as far as I'm concerned, but still...
), haven't made this allegation.
Maybe that Goodin "reference" supports it (I don't know how to look
that up), but somehow I doubt it. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 02:07 PM EDT |
A reference to them should have been sufficient. After all the judge has them
already available.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 02:09 PM EDT |
What happens to a journalist that is supenaed in a lawsuit? Can they never write
about it again? Does SCO just want to silence groklaw?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 02:10 PM EDT |
PJ, I've allways most entertained read your articles shredding SCO's
"facts". Would you please do me the favor again?
They garble something about information from IBM????
Greetings from Denmark.
P.S.: Keep digging the truth! You are objective. But an objective analysis fro
stupidity doesn't make it look less stupid.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- SCO facts? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 06 2007 @ 10:27 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: gumnos on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 02:14 PM EDT |
How could SCO have missed the processor connection?! Not only is Groklaw
"hosted on IBM-donated servers", but PJ assuredly has benefited from IBM
technolgy, either in terms of using an Intel x86 processor (known universally
under the moniker "IBM Compatible PC") or the IBM-developed PowerPC
processor.
And there's the clear parallel that "International Business
Machines" shortens their name to "IBM", just as "Pamela Jones" has
shortened her name to "PJ". Obviously an uninspired fabrication of a front for
IBM.
On top of such undeniable evidence, you can tell that among
important website redesign issues, high priority was clearly given to themeing a
"Groklaw Blue" scheme to fall in line with "Big Blue"'s corporate
branding
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, such incontrovertible
evidence demands that we serve a subpoena on Ms. Jones by any measure we deem
appropriate including but not limited to:
- billboard
- skywriting over the city of our choice
- writing in soap,
shaving-cream or whipped-cream on the windows of one of the cars in our parking
lot
- infrared or radio transmission
- ESP, telepathy, or the
voices in her head
- the SETI project
- via singing telegram
performed by livestock or poultry of our choice
- general web
subpoena-ish sounding threats in the media
</sarcasm>
-gumnos
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Anagram - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 02:45 PM EDT
- Pictures on milk cartons! :-) (n/m) - Authored by: Jaywalk on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 03:11 PM EDT
- It's a conspiracy, I tell you! :) - Authored by: PJ on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 08:14 PM EDT
- It's a conspiracy, I tell you! :) - Authored by: PJ on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 08:16 PM EDT
- It's a conspiracy, I tell you! :) - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 09:40 PM EDT
- kbd warning for parent! - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 11:23 PM EDT
- It's a conspiracy, I tell you! :) - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 06 2007 @ 01:32 AM EDT
- It's a conspiracy, I tell you! :) - Authored by: moosie on Friday, April 06 2007 @ 01:41 AM EDT
- It's a conspiracy, I tell you! :) - Authored by: grouch on Friday, April 06 2007 @ 01:43 AM EDT
- PLEASE!!! - Authored by: tyche on Saturday, April 07 2007 @ 09:13 AM EDT
- It's a conspiracy, I tell you! :) - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 06 2007 @ 07:10 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: nola on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 02:15 PM EDT |
I see that SCO is trying to have the deposition introduced in IBM, as well as
Novell. Which would mean reopening discovery, if I understand correctly.
Doesn't that mean that IBM can oppose the motion, and therefore that PJ
might not have to do so herself at her own expense? That would not seem to
be the brightest strategy for intimidation. Or maybe I'm missing something
(quite possible)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Footgun? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 02:29 PM EDT
- Footgun? - Authored by: tknarr on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 02:37 PM EDT
- Footgun? - Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 02:43 PM EDT
- Footgun? - Authored by: tknarr on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 03:06 PM EDT
- Footgun? - Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 03:18 PM EDT
- Footgun? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 05:30 PM EDT
- Footgun? - Authored by: tknarr on Friday, April 06 2007 @ 01:18 AM EDT
- Footgun? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 06 2007 @ 01:20 PM EDT
- This is not a subpoena..... - Authored by: tiger99 on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 03:21 PM EDT
- Footgun? - Authored by: tinkerghost on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 04:33 PM EDT
- NO - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 06:08 PM EDT
- NO - Authored by: JamesK on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 06:12 PM EDT
- NO - Authored by: Cyberdog on Friday, April 06 2007 @ 08:43 AM EDT
- Footgun? - Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 02:38 PM EDT
- Footgun? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 05:13 PM EDT
- Footgun? - Authored by: PJ on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 08:22 PM EDT
- Footgun? - Authored by: jplatt39 on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 02:40 PM EDT
- Not yet? - Authored by: tiger99 on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 03:27 PM EDT
- Now - Authored by: jplatt39 on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 03:52 PM EDT
- Now - Authored by: tiger99 on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 06:09 PM EDT
- Now - Authored by: grouch on Friday, April 06 2007 @ 01:57 AM EDT
- Now - Authored by: jplatt39 on Friday, April 06 2007 @ 02:52 AM EDT
- Now - Authored by: grouch on Friday, April 06 2007 @ 12:07 PM EDT
- Sorry - Authored by: jplatt39 on Saturday, April 07 2007 @ 05:53 PM EDT
- Not yet? - Authored by: Yobgod on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 06:26 PM EDT
- Footgun? - Authored by: Steve Martin on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 10:20 PM EDT
- Footgun? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 06 2007 @ 03:56 AM EDT
- Footgun? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 06 2007 @ 10:45 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: BobinAlaska on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 02:30 PM EDT |
I woke up early this morning with this thought banging around in my head. If
Mr. Zimmer keeps a log then one of our members in Salt Lake could go by the
courthouse and get a copy. Then the fact that he picked up a copy of the log
could be logged :D Couldn't resist. Anyway, the log would most likely show that
again, one of our members went to the courthouse and picked it up. This would
shut good old SCOG & BSF up big time. Wouldn't you love it!
---
Bob Helm, Juneau, Alaska
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Not likely - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 02:48 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: LocoYokel on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 02:34 PM EDT |
.
---
Waiting for the games I play to be released in Linux, or a decent Windows
emulator, to switch entirely.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 02:44 PM EDT |
SCO makes a big deal about how they tried to serve from January 30 2007 for a
depo to take place on Feb. 21. Since the federal rules mandate that at least 20
days notice be given that cuts it pretty close, which indicates that they
expected the alleged subpoena to be served immediately. However, in the motion,
SCO states "SCO seeks the instant relief now, rather than after service on
Ms. Jones and the scheduling of a specific time and place for her
deposition..."
My question is this: If this was the stated goal of the motion, why did they
wait until April 4 to file?
If they wanted to file the motion before service, given the fact that they had 1
day to serve the motion (to meet the 20 day requirement of FRCP), why didn't
they file the motion at that time?
It seems to me that the fact above, coupled with: i) the fact that they offered
no proof of the subpoena; ii) that they provided no affidavit alleging an
attempt to serve; and iii) they have not alleged an attempt to get another
subpoena and attempt to serve it from Feb. 21 to April 4 provides strong
circumstantial evidence that they never really attempted to effectuate service
during this time. Thoughts?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 02:48 PM EDT |
Everyone, please post messages of support for PJ here.
SCO seems to think that this was all something IBM cooked up. Yet I know for a
fact that I first heard of this case due to non-Groklaw articles quoting Darl
McBride and other SCO executives. I knew back then that they were, as Linus has
also said, "full of it" and I was upset at what they were doing. This
was never PJs doing.
If you feel as I do, please post here and show SCO and everyone else that it's
SCO's own fault that the court of public opinion has ruled against them!
DISCLAIMER: I do not, nor have I ever, worked for IBM. I do not receive money
or any other consideration from IBM. I do not receive any kind of instructions
from, nor do I communicate with any IBM employees whatsoever. I do what I do
and I say what I say because SCO's own media campaign upset me and turned me
against them![ Reply to This | # ]
|
- With the support PJ is sure to have - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 03:49 PM EDT
- We Support PJ! - Authored by: RPN on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 04:34 PM EDT
- *I* Support PJ! - Authored by: Steve Martin on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 10:28 PM EDT
- I'd miss PJ but not SCO - Authored by: stomfi on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 11:05 PM EDT
- We Support PJ! - Authored by: tanstaafl on Friday, April 06 2007 @ 01:30 AM EDT
- We Support PJ! - Authored by: reuben on Friday, April 06 2007 @ 01:33 AM EDT
- We Support PJ! - Authored by: Weeble on Friday, April 06 2007 @ 02:40 AM EDT
- We Support PJ! - Authored by: moosie on Friday, April 06 2007 @ 02:47 AM EDT
- We Support PJ! - Authored by: grouch on Friday, April 06 2007 @ 03:26 AM EDT
- We Support PJ! - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 06 2007 @ 09:15 AM EDT
- *We* Support PJ! - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 06 2007 @ 11:43 AM EDT
- We Support PJ! - Authored by: stites on Friday, April 06 2007 @ 12:08 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 02:49 PM EDT |
What is the truth here?
The notice given to IBM of the prospective
deposition by virtue of SCO's instant Motion is more than sufficient,
because
SCO has not yet served Ms. Jones with a subpoena for her deposition. Obviously
aware of SCO's designs to depose her, Ms. Jones has neither accepted service of
the subpoena nor agreed to appear for deposition, but rather appears to have
fled and evaded service of the subpoena.
...
Without debating now the
admissibility of any testimony that Ms. Jones may give at deposition, SCO
plainly satisfies the foregoing language if IBM is represented at the
deposition, which it would be if the depositions were deemed taken in SCO v.
IBM. In addition, this Motion has given IBM "reasonable notice" of the
prospective deposition.
SCO seeks the instant
relief now, rather than after service on Ms. Jones and the scheduling of a
specific time and place for her deposition, in order to avoid any argument from
IBM that the company lacked notice of the deposition or was not given an
opportunity to represent itself at the deposition. With respect to the relevance
of the instant notice give to IBM, SCO will continue to make every effort to
timely serve and depose Ms. Jones, and indeed may need to pursue alternative
means of service with the Court, consistent with the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
If SCO really wanted IBM to be involved in this
deposition, how come they are only now trying to inform IBM about it? If their
claim is that they've tried to serve PJ, without involving IBM before, then
they've demonstrated by that act that the testimony requested is not relevant to
SCO v IBM.
Just lies, all lies. First they say the motion is just to ask the
court to consider the deposition, whenever it is taken to be part of SCO v IBM
because IBM has done so and so with groklaw. Then they turn around and say they
are informing IBM now before serving PJ so that IBM can be informed of the time
and place for the deposition. It begs the question. What was the time and place
for the deposition they tried to serve before if in fact they did try?
Liars! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Carla Schroder on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 03:05 PM EDT |
It appears that the only punishment SCO will suffer for
all their shenanigans, harassments, lies, and abuse of the
courts is their suit against IBM is going to, someday,
perhaps by the year Y3K, run out of gas and not make it to
trial.
Hurrah. :P
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 03:06 PM EDT |
Tell me again why comments are 'redacted'. Is it to protect SCO or IBM or PJ or
some other? Is it to prevent liable lawsuits against the party that submits the
documents?
Is it sensitive information that is being hidden (this seems OK by me) or is it
to keep us from laughing at SCO?
---------
Night Flyer at work
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 03:08 PM EDT |
Wasn't the time for the depositions already over? Can they just try to depose
anyone they want at any point in time to support conspiracy theories that they
started, and would never believe themselves?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 03:10 PM EDT |
SCO do raise one point, which I'm sure can be answered
fairly easily...
The copy of "REDACTED Memorandum by Intl Bus Mach Inc in
support of [225-1] motion for partial summary judgment on
Breach of Contract Claims" on Groklaw is subtly different
to the version hosted at the Utah courts website - is
there a simple explaination for that (such as someone went
to the court and scanned a different copy for Groklaw)?
Dan[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 03:13 PM EDT |
Somehow SCO's lawsuit is reminding me of SCO's Unix product offerings.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 03:44 PM EDT |
Where to begin?
This motion will fail! Why?
First, discovery & depositions has closed in SCOg vs IBM.
In the argument section of brief BS&F should have stated under which FRCP in
this cause of action that this motion is a valid motion to make under.
Second, BS&F needed to explain why this only came to their attention now,
and could not have been known prior to now. Especially in light of the fact that
both discovery and depositions has closed in SCOg vs IBM.
Third, the subpoena should have been attached to this brief as an exhibit.
Fourth, a declaration or declarations from the person or persons or entity or
entities that attempted to effect service should have been attached.
Since this is not a proper motion before Court from the Court's perspective, and
given that in this brief BS&F has admitted public interest in and about
their's and their client's filings with the Court.
One has to ask why would any practicing attorney prove their incompetence to
that very same public? Talk about a career limiting move!
If I where BS&F I would recommend serious contemplation about a career
change as my prospects are starting to look pretty dim.
The sad fact, is given how poor the brief is, one is left questioning both the
motives and objectives of the lawyers involved. At this point, any so called
facts BS&F allege in this brief are either hearsay or irrelevant.
Even if one accepted all they allege as true, (and I from one don't accept
anything they allege as true) BS&F has failed to bring this matter properly
before the Court. They just have not made their case for the relief they seek.
The questions I'm left wondering is when does incompetence by lawyer become
fraud, and why would a lawyer do it in public?
Inquiring minds want to know?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Easy: change of career.. - Authored by: Peter Baker on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 03:53 PM EDT
- If I were BS&F, I'd quit practicing law! - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 03:56 PM EDT
- But if they quit practicing, they'll never get it right! (n/m) - Authored by: Jaywalk on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 04:06 PM EDT
- Not necessarily career limiting at all ... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 04:34 PM EDT
- BS&F don't expect this motion to fly - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 06:10 PM EDT
- food:burgers,sandwiches and fries - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 06:13 PM EDT
- More likely Darl wrote it :) - Authored by: globularity on Friday, April 06 2007 @ 12:33 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: joef on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 03:52 PM EDT |
Since there is no meat in this motion, I can only conclude that its purpose is
to get free PR at a time when things look bleak, indeed, for SCO. I suspect they
don't really care whether or not they get to depose PJ. They've got their PR.
And as a long shot, if they are able to get a deposition from PJ in the Novell
case and can use any evidence so obtained against IBM, they have achieved an end
run around the cutoff dates ordered in SCO v. IBM. But the specified purpose of
this motion is to request the court to order that anything found in deposing PJ
to be used in SCO v. IBM. Neat, if they cam pull it off.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 03:53 PM EDT |
BFS knows that SCO is facing having to answer for all of
Darl's wild fantasies, er, public comments.
They know they may have to answer for any "feeding" of the press their
clients may have participated in.
They desperately need to manufacture some evidence of IBM
doing the same thing so that SCO can claim that IBM has "unclean
hands" and therefore SCO is not responsible for their own public FUD and
FAD (new term "Fantasies And Delusions", used to reference Darl's
latest theory of reality).
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Jadeclaw on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 04:01 PM EDT |
written by Lewis A. Mettler:
Groklaw gets a
subpoena?
And to be frank, I couldn't have said it
better.
---
Best regards
Jadeclaw.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Alan(UK) on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 04:01 PM EDT |
I am still all at sea.
SCO failed to serve their subpoena on PJ. They then give this as a 'reason set
forth' for asking the judge to treat a deposition not yet taken on the
SCOvNovell case as applying to SCOvIBM.
I just do not understand the logic - it is not even wrong.
---
Microsoft is nailing up its own coffin from the inside.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 04:12 PM EDT |
Boies has a bet with Hatch....
That BSF couldn't provoke a sua sponte Rule 11 finding by Kimball....
Apart from that, or heavy use of psychotropic drugs, I have NO idea what's going
on....
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: MplsBrian on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 04:18 PM EDT |
I haven't scanned the other thread since it surpassed about 200 replies, so I
don't know if the point has been raised.
Does a subpoena for Ms Jones make her party to the litigation? If so, would
such a subpoenad party have access to redacted documents in the litigation? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: webster on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 04:20 PM EDT |
..
This is a desperate attempt to save the FUD campaign.
---
webster
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 04:23 PM EDT |
I seem to recall that each party in SCO vs. IBM was allowed a limited number of
depositions. Does anyone know how many depositions SCO has taken? Would allowing
SCO's yet to be taken deposition of PJ to be used in SCO vs. IBM exceed SCO's
deposition limit?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 04:46 PM EDT |
It's amazing what businesses will do to try and stifle free speech that doesn't
portray them in a favorable light.
Any sought after legal requirement to compel, to appear, or any other such
measure that could, might and probably will, subject a private citizen
[especially critics, whistleblowers and advocates to the jurisdiction of a
specific court, in a jurisdiction they would not normally be under otherwise, is
a serious legal issue.
All Motions are subject to jurisdictional challenges. The way I understand it,
unless I'm mistaken, if I am served in my home state, with a legal service from
a court outside the jurisdiction of my local federal court, I can oppose the
motion on those jurisdictional grounds, and any other grounds I can find.
I know that in most federal court rules, jurisdictional challenges have to be
made first, or they can't be made later. Then there are due diligence motions-
meaning the plaintiff could have gotten the information from other sources. A
whole slew of other challenges, including any publisher privileges, can be made
as well.
They might get what they want in the end, but they'd have to work for it and
everything would be by the book.
CT
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 04:47 PM EDT |
Maybe someday the truth will come out and everyone will see the darkness behind
PJ. Even if it doesn't...we'll always know won't we? Sleep well.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 04:48 PM EDT |
If we are patient, we will see all of come out in court documents. This has
become a soap opera that thousands of people are watching. CEOs, students,
profesionals, and lawyers are some of the people following this case. PJ once
said that she wanted to show us her passion for law. She has given me an
appreciation of law I never had. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Amen! - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 06:19 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 04:49 PM EDT |
You see, the name "Jones" is really derived from the name
"John", which is in turn derived from the German "Johann".
And "Pamela" traces its derivation from Paul (though several
intermediate rungs of the ladder).
So SCO is looking for somebody named Paul Johann in Armonk, New York, in order
to serve a subpoena on them. This is why PJ has never received the subpoena.
MSS2
P.S. Not only IANAL, but I'm not great on the origins of names, either.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: TheElf on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 05:13 PM EDT |
( this was posted near the end of the previous article )
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 | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 05:17 PM EDT |
NEWS Flash - SCOX prices are up today as a result of SCO trying to deposition
Pamela Jones, a blogger who has been following the SCO / IBM court case for 4
years.
Prevoiusly the share price was sinking faster than a lead ballon however on this
new incredible TRUE reliable God honest Yes Judge I telling the truth hope to
die story, the share price is rising again.
One could conclude that this is a method of manipulating the market. Using court
cases instead of sales and products to increase share value. Look over the pass
4 years and you can see the true result to the share price.
NASDQ would be now looking into dropping SCOX from trading as it is now under
the dollar mark, unless SCO can come up with another great magic show to bolster
itś share price.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 05:23 PM EDT |
If so then why does PJ have to submit to this kind of harrassment. If SCO
don't want to hear it don't read or class it all as fiction then prvoe that
point.Go for it publish something ,SCO, that proves your case or debunks what PJ
has written or passed to the public.
The fact is they can't and once again the US court system shows it allows
good honest people to get dragged in the mud , oh yes eventually SCO will be
slapped for it somehow and as far as i'm concerned you aren't even worth a dos
attack , your just so sad the whole lot of you and every employee who works for
them ought to be ashamed of the conduct of the company for with that they work
for.
SAD SAD indeed.
NO it's lame real lame.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 05:28 PM EDT |
What an excellent opportunity to speculate on the many attempts of SCO minions
to serve PJ...
I mean, surely being diligent and erstwhile SCO must have made every effort to
serve every "P" Jones to be found in the phone books in several
states, right?
I will start with the first fictional, speculative, "serving"...
As the server finally claws his way through the final patch of brambles
and reaches the cabin at the top of the hill. He spots a grizzled elderly gent
rocking on the porch cradling a riffle in his hands. "Good day sir" he
says with a smile as he attempts to brush his hair into some semblance of array,
could I please speak with "Pamela Jones". The kindly grizzled gent
replies, "taint no Pamela Jones here. How be it you missed the no
trespassing signs staked all around my mountain?"
Our intrepid server replies "Well, sir, I have this subpoena that I must
serve." As he holds up the folded subpoena "I will just leave it here
with you.." he says as
the grizzled gent swings the riffle around and proceeds to convert the top 2/3rd
of the subpoena to confetti.
"You'd best be leaving fast like." the grizzled gent says as he spits
his chaw onto the subpoena server's shoe.
As the grizzled gent reloads we observe the subpoena server slipping and sliding
down the hill side...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Sean DALY on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 05:57 PM EDT |
So, after literally thousands of documents in the public record and years of
meandering discovery, SCO's lawyers can only talk about a single document
forwarded to PJ by either IBM, a journalist, or a Groklaw volunteer? And quote
some uninformed and largely speculative press articles?
PJ has documented every article she has ever written. This last-gasp attempt to
intimidate PJ is reprehensible. Have those lawyers no shame?
Sean DALY.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Reprehensible. - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 06:58 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 05:57 PM EDT |
Just a quote from the Intel response to their subpoena (attempt): "See,
e.g.,
Travelers Indem. Co. v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 228 F.R.D. 111, 114 (D.
Conn. 2005) (party required to obtain available documents from other parties
to the litigation and public record "rather than placing an undue burden on
a
non-party"); Moon v. SCP Pool Corp., 2005 WL 3526513, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Dec.
7, 2005) ("plaintiffs can more easily and inexpensively obtain the
documents
from defendant, rather than from nonparty").
Any information that SCO could have received from Novell, or from IBM, it
needs to request from Novell or IBM, and not a third party like PJ. So if they
want to know about any relationship between PJ and IBM, ask IBM. If they
want to know whether the Novell statements about SCO's non-existing Unix
copyrights are true or false, ask Novell. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 06:07 PM EDT |
I read the Maureen O'Gara article that "outed PJ"
before SYS-CON pulled it, and back then I shrugged my shoulders.
I still read Groklaw. I stopped reading the various SYS-CON sites.
You would have thought that the plaintiffs and their supporters would have
recognized that the previous incident backfired, yet here comes another effort
that looks like it is trying to "out" PJ.
Is anyone else thinking about Benjamin Franklin's definition of insanity at the
moment? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: seekamp on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 06:10 PM EDT |
| Why depose the real PJ? They would do much better with someone totally
oblivious:
- You find somewhere in IBM a Ms. P. Jones. Come on, with
a name like "Jones" in a company of 300,000+? No problem.
- You depose this P.
Jones asking yes/no questions.
SCO Lawyer: Now Ms. Jones, I ask
that you answer the following questions with a "yes" or "no" only. Do you
understand?
Ms. Jones: Yeah, I guess so
SCO Lawyer:
Excellent. Ms. Jones, at any time did you object to IBM using an employee
pretending to be an external person commenting solely based on personal
conviction on the groklaw site?
Ms. Jone's lawyer: Objection to
form
SCO Lawyer: Answer the question please! Yes or No?
Ms.
Jones: What is groklaw? How am I ...
SCO Lawyer: Yes or No! Did
you object or not?
Ms.Jones: No I didn't object.
SCO
Lawyer: Now Ms. Jones, did you at any time even suggest to IBM management
that it might be inappropriate for you to be paid for your current
assignment?
Ms. Jone's Lawyer: Objection to form. Hey, where is this
heading?
SCO Laywer: Answer yes or no please, Ms. Jones. Did you
suggest it was inappropriate for you to be paid.
Ms. Jones: No, of
course not.
SCO Lawyer: Thank you Ms. Jones. That will be
all.
Headline in a supposedly respected financial magazine, by Daniel
Slyin:
Groklaw's PJ never objected to IBM fronting Groklaw and happy to be
paid for it.
With this approach, the FUD possibilities are endless. You
can make up your own questions.
With the august group representing SCO, it
seems possible.
Obviously, as you can tell, IANAL. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 06:20 PM EDT |
Because SCO found filings used on groklaw didn't come from where the average joe
would problably get them from, Groklaw must have got them from IBM. Yet they
ignore that while groklaw maybe read and studied by average joe, the people
doing the majority of the legal research have experience and knowledge that
enables them to source material from professional legal sources.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Alternative ? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 07 2007 @ 10:11 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 07:26 PM EDT |
PJ - you never started Groklaw to make any money to begin with, correct? So you
don't need to make any money off a slander/libel suit. What you need is the
best slander/libel lawyers money can buy, sue BSF and Darl for $30 or $40
million and let your lawyers have 100% of the spoils of victory, less your
expenses and lost earnings. I can't believe their are not any legal sharks who
would not jump at this opportunity (ah, the old triple negative). Hopefully,
disbarrment for BSF layers will occur and Darl will end up in the poor house or
in jail.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Aussie vernacular - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 07:38 PM EDT
- Just sue - Authored by: PJ on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 08:54 PM EDT
- Just sue - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 09:18 PM EDT
- Just sue - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 09:28 PM EDT
- McC E - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 11:37 PM EDT
- Ah, that explains your reply. - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 10:09 PM EDT
- Just sue - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 10:18 PM EDT
- Just sue - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 06 2007 @ 07:15 PM EDT
- My apologies - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 06 2007 @ 01:10 AM EDT
- My apologies - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 07 2007 @ 04:11 PM EDT
- Oh, lighten up - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 06 2007 @ 01:22 PM EDT
- It's also regularly used on The Register - a site that often appears in News Picks - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 06 2007 @ 01:45 PM EDT
- For PJ - a humble suggestion - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 06 2007 @ 02:09 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 07:42 PM EDT |
I'm a non-lawyer, but I can think of MANY good reasons why this subpoena should
be quashed and left out of the IBM litigation. Honestly, it has no bearing on
the Novell litigation, either, but I don't doubt that they'll try to have it in
both for the purposes of FUD, delay and nuisance.
How and why do I think it's a delay tactic? They *easily* could have done this
earlier in the litigation, but saved it until now, in yet another attempt to
ambush IBM:
* SCO made allegations that IBM funded Groklaw long ago. They should have
deposed PJ then.
Thus, SCO knew or should have known to depose PJ long ago, well before discovery
was closed like this. They first made the allegations, I believe, back when MoG
did her "investigation" and they may well have made quips beforehand.
They've alleged no new evidence--even the motion they reference Groklaw having
an "early" copy of is from *2004* which I believe is well before the
discovery cut-offs, especially when they've had PIs trailing PJ for some time
now, if MoG can be believed.
Thus, if they truly believe it relevant, they knew or should have known to
depose PJ back then, without causing undue delay. The fact that they did not
shows that this is just another last, desperate gasp from SCO.
* There is evidence that SCO may have leaked things to the media.
Dan Lyons of Forbes has long had an uncanny insight into SCO's next move. I
believe these things are well-documented elsewhere, but he knew about things
like the subpoena. Given that the subpoena wasn't put on PACER, who else could
he have learned that from except SCO?
Thus, even if we were to accept SCO's claim that PJ was a proxy for IBM (and I
most certainly do NOT), is SCO's claim not hypocritical?
For that matter, what about MoG's "expose" on PJ? Was that not from
information gathered by SCO's PIs? And, I honestly don't remember, but wasn't
this well after SCO had been told to desist its PR campaign in the media?
And here, I'm entirely ignoring SCO's early media campaign, by which I first
came to know (and dislike) them. Was it really any wonder that angry people,
such as Linux developers, spoke out when they believe that SCO was spreading
misinformation?
* The evidence SCO seeks is more readily available from IBM.
If, as SCO alleges (and I don't buy their allegations for a New York minute), PJ
or Groklaw is funded by IBM, they could simply have requested all correspondence
from IBM to Groklaw, a list of all funds provided to Groklaw, etc. Not
satisfied that the evidence shows no wrongdoing by IBM, they now seek to drag a
non-party into the case for apparently little reason except harassment.
I sincerely hope that PJ is able to answer their claims by proxy. I also
sincerely hope that PJ is able to file restraining orders or some other such
thing against Darl & co. Hopefully, PJ's lawyer will be able to figure out
ways to protect her from harassment and protect her privacy. It would be nice
if PJ had a big stack of those threatening emails and posts she's mentioned to
drop on the desk in front of her when questioned about why she wants to stay
unknown.
* Has SCO properly served ANY subpoenas in this litigation?
I'm asking because I don't remember any. I do remember the subpoenas to Oracle
and Intel. I remember that they were all but laughed out of court. I'm having
deja vu right now.
Someone else pointed out all the technical defects already, this is just an
expansion upon that. I have to wonder if BS&F is merely careless, or
malicious when drafting subpoenas like those to Intel and Oracle? Well, okay.
To be totally honest, I *don't* actually wonder which of the two they are.
* It relies on hearsay and conjecture, some of which was fostered by SCO
itself!
When SCO relies on private blogs (has Forbes finally gotten rid of Lyons?)
containing SCO's own conjectures, republished by 3rd parties, how can the Court
possibly take them seriously?
-----
I can't wait to see CS&M's reply to this brief. If it's anything like the
past few hundred briefs, they will destroy SCO's every claim in minute detail.
If even non-lawyers can find this many problems with their argument, how can it
do anything but go down in flames in the courtroom?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rm6990 on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 07:47 PM EDT |
| Good coverage of this on Ars. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 08:55 PM EDT |
P.J.
Some of the stuff is true.
This is your blog (website kind of, though it is really ibiblio).
You have reported extensivly on SCO's disputes with Novell and IBM.
As far as disseminating Novell's claims are concerned, you did bring to our
attention the documents in the Novell lawsuit that were the court records. Oh,
wait a minute. Is SCO complaining that someone is making public stuff that is
normally is ignored by the public at large?
Well La De Da. It's about time spotlights were shined on some of this stuff.
What attracts me to your site is the ***FACTUAL*** reporting where you point us
at the documents themselves and let us make up our own minds. Sure your biased
and have an opinion, and it's no secret to say you have a low opinion of today's
SCO. But the point is we know what your opinion is, and we know what has been
filed. We can tell from the published record that Judge Kimball is not
impressed with the evidence SCO has presented. This is not your opinion, this
is the judges considered, unbiased, studied, knowledgable conclusion based on
the facts available at the time he wrote his decision.
I don't have any proof that you are not acting for IBM, but only your own
published word for it here. However I doubt you would be such a vociferous
opponent of Novell and it's deal with Microsoft if you were really had an
allegience with and financial connection to Novell. You know, it's not a good
idea to bite the hand that feeds you sort of thing. Ah, but they say, that's
just a red herring to distract people from the reality behind the scenes. Uh,
realities such as pipe fairies and feeding redacted material to Maureen O'Dowd.
You know,they say people project their own behavior on others. Perhaps because
they practice this,they can't conceive that others don't.
Lets look at things seriously. So far, all SCO has shown that you are a
shill for IBM is the same sort of nebulous connectivity that justifies their
claim that Linux is a derivitive of Unix. And all the code that exists is a
derivitive of ENIAC machine language code.
Ah enough of this. Glad you are feeling better and are back to updating
this site.
Take care and stay well.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 09:12 PM EDT |
PJ is an award winning journalist. She has shown that she has a good grasp of
the legal system. She knows how to research legal topics. There will be many
legal briefs, motions and hearings before PJ will be deposed. I am waiting for
PJ to ratcheted these legal procedings up a few notches and I think that this
will prove that we are witnessing a very special moment in history. I don't
think SCO and friends realize who they are trying to push around and the legal
fallout. I believe that this motion will backfire on SCO. This train wreck
will be fun to watch in slow motion. Please pay attension to the coming
shenanigans it looks like a soap opera like we have never seen. IANAL, but I am
watching for SCO get squashed by the fallout of this ill conceived tactic
YD&S[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: The Mad Hatter r on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 09:25 PM EDT |
Last night I had some free time, so I checked out Dan's blog. He has articles
titled:
Head in the Sand Award
Groklaw Comment of the Day
Shoot the Messenger*
Stallman says: Don't Use Game Consoles
Watch Richard Stallman Duck and Weave
Chris Stone, ex Novell, on the GPL*
Just a Theory
It's not just PJ, by the way
I had some objections to some of what I read, so I posted two comments to the
asterisked articles. I checked to make sure that they showed up, and then went
to do laundry.
About an hour later, while watching the Sopranos, I realized that once again,
I'd forgotten to check my email. After doing that I dropped back into Lyons blog
to see if he'd responded. He hadn't, but he had deleted my posts.
Now I was my usual self - direct. On the other hand I don't swear, and I try to
treat people politely, after all I know that I'm right all the time, and anyone
who hasn't talked to me before isn't going to know that <GRIN>.
So methinks that Mr. Lyons has a very thin skin.
---
Wayne
http://urbanterrorist.blogspot.com/
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 09:50 PM EDT |
this case does not mean anything any more - so don't threat PJ hang in there -
microsoft found another stooge to do it's dirty work in novell
so they have moved on to greener pastures so to speak.
just thought novell was smarter than that. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: katayamma on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 11:07 PM EDT |
They left one in her mailbox? That's illegal! Only the USPS is authorized to
place ANYTHING in the mailbox as her mail box is US Government property!
I wonder if the judge will catch that one?
---
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: AcousticZen on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 11:12 PM EDT |
I keep coming back to this line in SCO's latest folly, er, filing.
". . .opponents of SCO have conducted their case against SCO in the court
of public opinion, where no gate-keeper monitors the reliability of
content."
This is just an INCREDIBLE claim for SCO to make. This is the same company that
REPEATEDLY said "millions of lines" of SCO's IP code was
"literally dumped" "verbatim" into Linux. The same company
that held news conferences that if someone was willing to sign their lives to
SCO under NDA, they could see samples of this literal dumping. SCO REPEATEDLY
claimed that in the court room, they would show this amazing evidence.
The same Darl McBride who cannot keep his mouth shut; he rambles on lie after
lie. I imagine he views himself as being tough and striking fear into the people
he addresses. However, he seems like most other CEO's I have known that adopt
this attitude - they are completely clueless that the real image they are
projecting is of an incompetent indecisive meddler, who you more feel sorry for
than fear.
The point is that SCO screams about the need for a "gate keeper" to
keep people from analyzing them (whatever happened to the 1st ammendment in
SCOworld???), while not realizing the Groklaw is performing this very function
on SCO themselves.
Another, tangental point also bothers me. I have known several Mormons
throughout my life/career. Without exception, these are the most honest, hard
working, caring people I have known. I am not a Mormon, nor am I tempted to
become one. I just admire these people I know. However, McBride, who has even
gone to Mormon missionaries to Japan, is willfully lying, using mean spirited
tactics (as shown by this latest and most ridiculous of SCO failings, er,
filings), and other questionable moral and ethical actions. How can he justify
his faith and his actions? I am EMBARESSED for my Mormon friends, when such a
public Mormon figure is so immoral and unethical.
Just my thoughts,
AZ[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 11:17 PM EDT |
Obviously, BSF's law firm is not very adept at serving a subpeona. So, for the
sake of argument, let's say that you lost all of your morals, and are working at
BSF. How would you go about serving PJ, while keeping in mind the competence
that BSF has demonstrated in SCO's case?
One poster has already suggested sky-writing.
My suggestion would be to stitch the subpeona to the laundry tag inside all of
red dresses being sold in PJ's hometown.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: J.F. on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 11:22 PM 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 which
opponents of SCO have conducted their case against SCO in the court of public
opinion, where no gate-keeper monitors the reliability of
content.
Hello? Pot calling kettle... Can you believe the
unmitigated GALL these people have? Complaining about opponents conducting a
case in the court of public opinion when they have done things
like:
Put on a Vega show with a James Bond theme where Darl rode in on
a motorcycle.
Hold a "roadshow" every year where the main talk is how SCO
owns UNIX and linux, and IBM owes them billions.
Send out press reports
saying they have proof that a million lines of code was directly
copied.
Send out letter to Congress on how the GPL is
unconstitutional.
Rhetorical question... is anyone else as disgusted by
these folks as I am?
Of course, then there was the part concerning the
reliability of content - then they turn around and use Dan Lyons as a source in
a legal document. I couldn't stop laughing for an hour.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 06 2007 @ 12:46 AM EDT |
| If SCO can funnel "evidence" from the Novell case into the IBM case, it's
effectively re-opened discovery. Once IBM allows even one more deposition into
the IBM case (especially on as weak grounds as this one), they have fewer
grounds for opposing still more. Alowing this into the IBM case would give SCO
what they need most - a precedent for turning the clock back on the case.
Everything that is publicly known about the SCO case is somewhere in
Groklaw. They would just have to ask PJ about some article that that she wrote,
and they could try to attach all sorts of "exhibits" related to it to the
deposition (even if this isn't technically allowed, they could still try), or at
least read those documents into the record. And of course their "experts" would
need to report on it.
SCO could offer to allow IBM to take more depositions
in return without it costing SCO anything. IBM already has all the evidence it
needs; they don't need more discovery, they need a resolution to the case. IBM
needs to shut this down or see the case set back by some unknown amount of time.
They can't do anything about what happens in the Novell case, but they need to
keep it out of the IBM case.
It is possible that this deposition idea
started off as a simple harassment ploy (Darl probably has too much spare time
on his hands and a lot of imagination). However, someone may have seen that they
could use it as a wedge to get more discovery in the IBM case. There is a good
chance that there have been no serious attempts at serving the deposition up to
now because they didn't really want to do it. However, if they succeed in their
motion to get the deposition admitted into the IBM case, then they might get
serious about serving it.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: wvhillbilly on Friday, April 06 2007 @ 12:58 AM EDT |
What's the difference between SCOG and a catfish?
One's a scum sucking bottom feeder, the other's a fish.
---
What goes around comes around, and the longer it goes the bigger it grows.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 06 2007 @ 01:03 AM EDT |
PJ,
Do us researchers with some free time a favor. Find all the "planted"
anonymous posts from this article and the previous that attempted to sow FUD, in
case the court reads Groklaw, and post their origin IP as traced by the
webserver logs. I bet most if not all are traceable to either SCO or BSF
directly. It's rare that you run into someone smart enough to think make their
IP untraceable when they troll, and I can't attribute those kind of brains to
either SCO or BSF.
Now THAT would be something interesting for the Judge to see!
Second, as others have stated I don't know why Kimball or Wells would allow it
to be admitted to the IBM case based on evidence above. And a simple filing in
the Novel case should easily take care of the deposition as it's entirely based
on hearsay based on SCO's own statements, and improperly filed with NO evidence
of actual attempted subpoena, not to mention that they are seeking info from a
third party that can easily be obtained from a party to the suit.
PJ, you should consider a SLAPP suit against BSF and SCO, the deposition is
clearly an attempt to limit your public discussion and reporting (you are
clearly a journalist in this case, although not entirely objective, but
objective journalists in 2007 are rarer than unicorns) by exposing you directly
to the death threats you have recieved by removing some of your anonymity. I'm
not sure if NY has a SLAPP law, but I will say that I'm certain California has a
SLAPP law and IBiblio's servers are in California if you wanted to file there
you probably could make it stick. As I'm sure you already know the SLAPP laws
usually cover exactly this kind of legal threat and intimidation to prevent
public participation. Statutory penalties, depending on the law, can be quite
severe and some states allow treble automatically on any judgement.
Heck, if possible I would ask the Novell and IBM judges (I'm aware they are the
same judge) to sanction BSF for the poorness of the filing and that they lied
and showed that lie in the filling in later comments.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 06 2007 @ 01:31 AM EDT |
Maybe I'm dumb, But the way I read the memo and the exhibits, BSF is trying to
say OSRM = OSDL = Linux Foundation?
They clearly jump from one, to the next then to the next as if they are same
group and than imply PJ worked for OSDL, when in fact she worked for OSRM an
insurance company. Almost the whole memo is based on those three organizations
being the same group and that Novel and IBM were both members of OSDL, which
they print the members of both OSDL and Linux Foundation to show this link. It's
just so outstandingly stupid I honestly can help but wonder if someone dyslexic
writing these court orders who honestly can't tell the difference between OSDL
and OSRM.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 06 2007 @ 04:12 AM EDT |
This SCOX thing is too big to merely live on it's own, I'll bet Orin Hatch is
involved somehow.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Ian Al on Friday, April 06 2007 @ 05:18 AM EDT |
Indeed, Wall Street Journal reporter Dan Lyons recently reported
that, according to his sources, OSDL paid "$40,000 to $50,000" to
Groklaw between late 2005 and early 2006. In response to an inquiry from Mr.
Lyons regarding the foregoing issues, IBM did not deny its knowledge of such
payments, or of OSDL's intent to use monies received from IBM towards supporting
Groklaw; nor did IBM deny that it knew the payments would in fact be made to
Groklaw, nor that IBM expected such payments to support the consistent and
strident anti-SCO message that Groklaw was communicating to the world. Instead,
IBM said only: "IBM does not have any agreements or arrangements with Groklaw or
Pamela Jones. IBM, like many other companies, has provided funding to OSDL in
the past, and you would have to contact them about how that funding was
disbursed." (Id.) Given that Mr. Mauri of IBM was the Chairman of the OSDL
during the relevant time frame, IBM's statement rings hollow, to say the least.
In addition, Novell has had a representative on the OSDL/The Linux Group
Board of Directors since 2003. Former Novell executive Chris Stone, who worked
with the OSDL for Novell in 2003 and 2004, admits in Mr. Lyons's piece that
"paying money to Groklaw 'would not have been a good thing for OSDL. OSDL was
meant to be above the fray, not investing in groups or web sites.'" In
addition to funneling money to Groklaw through the OSDL, moreover, IBM
contributes to the site's internet host.
Where is the evidence
that 'funneling money to Groklaw through the OSDL' is not a lie? That would be
an 'agreement or an arrangement with Groklaw or Pamela Jones' would it not? If
Novell consider that it 'would not have been a good thing for OSDL. OSDL was
meant to be above the fray, not investing in groups or web sites.' where is the
evidence that it did so?
Where is the deposition of Mr. Mauri of IBM where
they establish that he directed or condoned the payment by OSDL of '"$40,000
to $50,000" to Groklaw between late 2005 and early 2006'? If OSDL had
funnelled money to Groklaw (for which the only evidence is the anonymous SCOG
source of Dan Lions [sorry, not SCOG. Scrivener's error. Or is it?]) how do we
know that it was IBM that instigated it? The only thing in this part of the
motion which states that IBM funded Groklaw or Pamela Jones is the lie at the
end. These people are not just full of it. They are fit to burst and this
document is the evidence of with what they are bursting. Still, not to get
furious. But, I just can't help myself. ---
Regards
Ian Al [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Evidence. - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 06 2007 @ 05:31 AM EDT
- Evidence. - Authored by: jmc on Friday, April 06 2007 @ 05:42 AM EDT
- Evidence. - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 06 2007 @ 07:10 AM EDT
- Evidence. - Authored by: Ian Al on Friday, April 06 2007 @ 07:33 AM EDT
- Evidence. - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 06 2007 @ 08:04 AM EDT
- Evidence. - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 06 2007 @ 08:12 AM EDT
- Evidence. - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 06 2007 @ 08:19 AM EDT
- Evidence. - Authored by: JamesK on Friday, April 06 2007 @ 08:14 AM EDT
- Evidence. - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 06 2007 @ 11:54 AM EDT
- No need as NOT RELEVANT - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 06 2007 @ 08:19 AM EDT
- Evidence. - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 06 2007 @ 09:50 AM EDT
- Evidence. - Authored by: PJ on Friday, April 06 2007 @ 10:59 AM EDT
- Evidence. - Authored by: tinkerghost on Friday, April 06 2007 @ 11:08 AM EDT
- Evidence. - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 06 2007 @ 01:13 PM EDT
- Evidence. - Authored by: AcousticZen on Friday, April 06 2007 @ 01:27 PM EDT
- Evidence. - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 07 2007 @ 11:22 AM EDT
- Evidence. - Authored by: JamesK on Friday, April 06 2007 @ 08:12 AM EDT
- Evidence. - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 06 2007 @ 08:21 AM EDT
- Evidence. - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 06 2007 @ 08:23 AM EDT
- In SCO's world - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 06 2007 @ 11:24 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 06 2007 @ 07:09 AM EDT |
Before making my statements, I wish state my background. I've worked in many
prisons in investigations. I don't know enough about civil justice to speak from
experience, I do know some about criminal justice.
Criminal investigation is one of the most low profile kind of work a person can
involve themselves in. This is especially true when the investigations are
'behind the wall'.
Many Groklaw readers think there is no justice in the United States. There are
also a lot of bad people who wish this was true.
If I could draw a graph about how Justice on the outside works, it would be a
line that slowly rises over a course of time. If and when the conditions are
right that line in the graph starts moving up exponentially. At a certain point,
Justice kicks into action, and there is virtually nothing can be done to keep it
from happening, when she has determined to act.
In criminal trials we often think Justice has been served upon the verdict and
sentencing. Yes, but justice doesn't end there.
Prison is in many ways like a city, a lot of things happen there, just like in
the free world.
But in prison, justice happens at an accelerated pace. Crime happens in prison
just like on the outside, but it is much easier for us to deal with in a
controlled environment. Best to hope that the Department of Corrections deals
with your crimes and other offenses, before the inmates decide to get their
piece of justice.
In the civil court system one party moves then another party moves, so on and so
forth, in an orderly fashion.
Investigations don't play this tit for tat. We move when we move, if we move at
all. When this aspect of the justice system moves, it doesn't make press
releases or announcements. It moves when its criteria is right.
I've often thought the management of SCO has more than pushed the envelope on
criminal issues.
We are studying the movements of civil proceedings. If there are criminal
investigations going on we would not be able to see them or know about them. The
only authorities we see are Federal Courts in this civil matter. If other
authorities are investigating we would not see it.
Based on my experience and hunches, if other authorities move, they will do it
round about bankruptcy time.
Personally, I think SCO management could learn some very valuable lessons behind
the walls.
In the free world Darl wanted a bare fisted fight to the finish, anything and
everything is fair and it takes years.
If he takes this same attitude with him to prison, it ain't going to take years.
The fight to the finish will likely be finished before the sun sets, if not
maybe before it rises.
His intimidation schemes were a huge failure, people fought back.
They would fail worse in prison, because some men got nothing to lose. When it
comes to the pecking order of who gets to be the tough guy, Darl's got to earn
it all the way.
He gets to carry a gun in the free world, to give him an illusion of safety.
Let him try carrying a gun in prison and he'll get the bullet, if he doesn't do
exactly as told and when when he's told.
Inmates lose some rights to be sure. They don't lose the right to shoot off
their mouth or stick their foot in it.
Yet SCO complains to the court that PJ speaks, "where no gate-keeper
monitors the reliability of content." What citizen of what country do they
think she is?
Even the worst of convicted offenders are not required gate-keepers or monitors
of reliability of content.
We just figure, whatever the truth is, they didn't incarcerated him for being a
nice guy.
The right to free speech is so basic, is it almost never taken from people. They
even ask the person being put to death if he wants to say something.
One thing I'll tell you straight out is that inmates don't have a right to
privacy. The exception being when he speaks with his lawyer.
The rest of us have fundamental right to privacy. I post anonymously and its
perfectly fine. Nothing wrong here.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 06 2007 @ 08:18 AM EDT |
Bury those scumbags alive! :-)
Alberto[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Nah! - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 06 2007 @ 08:40 AM EDT
- Nah! - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 07 2007 @ 07:23 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 06 2007 @ 09:06 AM EDT |
PJ,
Just out of curiosity, if SCO emailed you to ask how they could get in contact
with you to serve you with the subpheona, would you respond and then accept
service?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 06 2007 @ 09:10 AM EDT |
Or don't they even try?
The courtroom is often a theatre, and here we see both good and evil, and things
done well and done badly. Even cat burglars or jewel thieves are owed some
respect by having honed their mastery to a high level even if their acts break
the commandments and law. Pity SCO and/or their law firm can't even do petty
things with any style.
Or maybe they expected you to go there and pick up the subpoena.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 06 2007 @ 09:43 AM EDT |
That PJ announced a health break and took some time off is considered proof that
she was evading being served...
It's the *internet* SCO.. once could log in from *anywhere* and do maintain a
website. She could even do it with one of those wireless broadband cards from
your own parking lot. So.. how is taking time off proof of evasion? Even if
she were actually trying to evade being deposed... she could maintain Groklaw
while doing one of those high speed chases like in the Bourne Supremecy...
(admittedly she might get car sick and spew out the window on occasion)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 06 2007 @ 09:46 AM EDT |
There unquestionly is a moderator for Groklaw.
The Moderator is the entire Groklaw reader collective. We have all seen it in
action down to the Nth degree. We have all seen corrections to PJ's facts made
when appropriate.
In fact PJ "asks" for things to be checked quite often and when called
for makes those corrections.
I submit Groklaw has in excess of 10's of thousands "MODERATORS".
Groklaw also has in excess of 10's of thousands of opinions posted (like this
one). PJ is entitles to hers. We are entitled to ours. I may not like yours BUT
we all do have a right to say it (within limits on this forum).
(sorry about spelling)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 06 2007 @ 10:56 AM EDT |
Groklaw is, after all, something really new and truly revolutionary to
litigation -- a virtual, worldwide meeting place for those interested (and
affected) by a lawsuit, and a meeting place where the claims of both of the
parties can be evaluated, dissected, rebutted, analyzed.
As we all know, reading and participating in Groklaw has been and continues to
be a remarkable experience, a learning experience in law, ethics, public policy,
in the history of technology and software, and more. I've told my lawyer friends
about it, describing it as a new as fascinating phenomena.
So my point is -- we're on new ground here, terra incognita.
And now we're seeing a new part of the new landscape -- namely, a party whose
interests are harmed by this light-of-day scrutiny is fighting back, in effect
to silence the forum and bring the litigation back to old and (for them) more
familiar ground, where they effectively operate underneath the cover of public
scrutiny -- where only the trial is public, and if their shakedown is effective,
no trial will ever occur.
And now a new turn in the road: since one of SCO's causes of action is framed
around tortious interference with business relations / unfair competition, they
are going to try to use that claim (always a stretch of a claim, anyway, in the
law of business torts) to try to tie "our" free speech to
"their" conspiracy theory. That's what this motion is about.
Now, we don't think it will succeed, but what I find fascinating is that this
effort by SCO really is an important moment, because its the "old
world" of litigation striking out against the new world, where Groklaw is
burning a new path.
Here's to Groklaw.
Lexlaw
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Glenn on Friday, April 06 2007 @ 12:26 PM EDT |
Anonymous wrote in part "(you are clearly a journalist in this case,
although not entirely objective, but
objective journalists in 2007 are rarer than unicorns)"
Actually I do not believe that you can find anyone truly objective. All of us
have our biases, etc. If not, we would not be human. Even scientists are not
objective. If you do not believe that, just follow some of the discussions on
intelligent design, on both sides.
That being said, it is possible to be subjective, yet be fair. And I feel
that PJ has been imminently fair in her critiques. She has invited anyone from
the opposing camp to post rebuttals here on groklaw, and how many has anyone
seen, either here or anywhere else, for that matter.
There have been a few dissenting opinions, but those opinions have been
accompanied supporting facts that are notable only by their absence.
Has anyone ever see Rob Enderle, Dan Lyons, Maureen O'Gara support any of
their tales with anything that resembles a fact?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Are you daft? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 06 2007 @ 02:28 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 06 2007 @ 12:48 PM EDT |
If you end up actually being deposed a suggestion.
Answer every question with a very long answer that points out how silly the
question was.
ex:
SCO: Ms Jones do you work for IBM?
PJ: What a silly question, of course I do not work for IBM, I have never worked
for IBM, and I have no plans for working for IBM, I can't believe you asked such
a silly question, what were you thinking anyway?
Not only will this limit the # of questions they can ask in a given period of
time, you can use each question to state how silly, ridiculous, lame, etc that
you find the question, and of course by implication SCO and their lawyers...
In a way this will also give you a small bit of control or influence over the
process.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: blang on Friday, April 06 2007 @ 02:58 PM EDT |
I keep seeing lots of people trying to use groklaw to their own ends. It means
something different to everyone. But first adn foremost, I'd like to address
Lyons, SCO, MOG and many other's cricisism of groklaw (and PJ).
1. Ultimately, while groklaw invites everyone (within reason) to participate,
the site is still PJ's brainchild.
2. PJ does not owe it to anyone to not have a bias.
3. While I agree that groklaw shows some bias against SCO (who would not I
ask?), groklaw is much more fair than one would expect.
4. We have seen much more dishonest reporting from some of the brick and mortar
press than we have seen from groklaw.
5. There is no law against bias.
6. If PJ had wanted to, she could have been 10 times more biased. There are
people who think she is not biased enough.
7. While groklaw aspire to very high standards in terms of first amendment,
fairness, etc., it is not an absolutist site.
8. Sometimens groklaw comes a bit short in terms of "do as I say, not as I
do". I think that's called being human.
9. Sometimes groklaw falls short of it's own high standards.
10. Still, after all these warts, groklaw is the most complete coverage of any
litigation that I have ever seen or heard about.
Finally:
11. Groklaw has provided more meat on the bone in terms of reporting on a
lawsuit over these 4 years than all the network and cable TV channels have put
together in all other litigation over the last decade. I think we have learned
much more from PJ than we have from 100's of highly paid talking heads (such as
Boies) who get on the news shows to comment on current events. Some channels
use panels espousing opposing views (balance), but get no closer to teh truth
that way. Even the reporting on high profile cases like the OJ Simpson case,
Iran Contras, Scooter Libby, Scott Peterson case, Enron, and on and on look
like 24/7 amateur hour when compared to groklaw's reporting. It's been more than
3000 high quality articles, several awards. Something new and big. One must
almost pity SCO for such terrible timing.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: DaveJakeman on Friday, April 06 2007 @ 04:07 PM EDT |
From the first posting of this article:
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.
With all the talk of bloggers'/jouralists' rights, free
speech, etc, and the many other sites that are running this story, there's going
to be many more visitors to Groklaw soon. Welcome to Groklaw,
folks.
---
Only two things are infinite: the universe and human
stupidity – and I'm not sure about the former. -- Einstein [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- A new world? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 06 2007 @ 05:24 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: kbwojo on Friday, April 06 2007 @ 04:31 PM EDT |
From all these post let me see if I am getting all this correctly.
In this motion SCO is accusing IBM of using the court of public opinion by
giving Groklaw documents that were available from the courthouse and later from
pacer???
Part of the proof they have is an article from Dan Lyons about a subpoena that
no one could know about because at the time it was not part of the public
knowledge and could have only been brought to Lyons attention through SCO
releasing that information to him????
Could this be the same Dan Lyons who was told in a private interview about SCO's
"Project Monterey" strategy even before they tried to have it entered
into the lawsuit????[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: DaveJakeman on Friday, April 06 2007 @ 04:37 PM EDT |
Although I think there's only a slim chance SCO will successfully serve PJ
their alleged subpoena, and a slimmer chance still PJ will actually get to be
deposed, my mind wanders, as others have before me, to what should she
wear?
The Red Dress has been suggested, but surely that has been reserved
for an aforementioned Special Occasion. No, it needs to be something more
formal; more appropriate.
How about a full-body fluffy penguin suit? This
would be good for preserving anonymity, whilst simultaneously giving the
paparazzi their fodder on entry to the courthouse (assuming that's where it
would be held). Then, in the privacy of the deposition, the head/beak could
optionally be peeled back to reveal PJ, if required. Or it might be fun for the
Fluffy Penguin to remain fully attired throughout.
I hope this wouldn't make
her replies appear to be biased: the Penguin speaks.
If SCO do resort to sky
writing the subpoena, maybe a full
Biggles
get-up with leather
helmet and goggles would be better.
---
Only two things are infinite:
the universe and human stupidity – and I'm not sure about the former. --
Einstein [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: furkoolitter on Friday, April 06 2007 @ 04:45 PM EDT |
Sooner than you think!
SCO drops the case.
SCO drops dead.
THE END
SCO 'drops' in love with PJ.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Stevieboy on Friday, April 06 2007 @ 04:56 PM EDT |
OK, guys - the point is , irrespective of whether it's open standard or open
source, a software can gain access to the OpenGL APIs to integrate into his own
software - as the CAD companies mentioned have successfully done.
Anybody here see Microsoft allowing a Linux distributor (apart from Novell - of
course) being able to do that with Open XML? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 06 2007 @ 05:52 PM EDT |
I've noticed that asking irrelevant questions in a deposition is a common
tactic. It seems that the victim must answer any question asked, and can only
lodge an objection to the question, not refuse to ask it. (except possibly for
self-incrimination, which is pretty narrow).
If the victim lies, they are subject to perjury charges, even if it is totally
irrelvant to the case.
How irrelevant can they really get? If there is no limit, I expect them to ask
some very hard questions. You could easily spend 8 hours asking very detailed
questions about someone's sex life.
If I were a SCO lawyer, I would ask PJ every question on the 2000 question
purity test, and require naming of names. Then I would get a deposition from
everyone named. Any discrepancy could lead to perjury charges. If nothing else,
the very uncomfortable process (and resulting public records) will serve as a
lesson to others.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: arch_dude on Friday, April 06 2007 @ 08:27 PM EDT |
Is is physically possible to walk into the courthouse and pretend you are a
courier and file a false document? This thing thing is so bizarre that it looks
like an April fools' joke. However, I assume that BSF would be obligated to
repudiate it expeditiously, so I guess it's real.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: arch_dude on Friday, April 06 2007 @ 08:36 PM EDT |
OK, the filing is probably just ineptitude and desparation, but instead it might
be a setup to allow for an appeal.
after reading the motion, Kimball and Welles must either read Groklaw, or not.
If they read Groklaw, BSF appeals on the grounds that Groklaw taints the
judge's legal interpretatoin of the case with all of teh unsanctions legal
analysis, etc.
If they do not read Groklaw, then obviously they are ruling on thsi motion
without doing a proper review. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 06 2007 @ 09:52 PM EDT |
Apparently SCO has filed a "corrected" version of 1018 (as 1022),
which moves the "subpoena by" date of May 31 to April 30...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: JR on Saturday, April 07 2007 @ 12:22 AM EDT |
Ok, say PJ gets a deposition date. Besides the whole set of horrible questions
asked, they will for sure ask questions that try to prove the theories they
themselves created and "leaked" to journalists.
Shouldn't SCOfolk AND Journalists first have to get deposed about their role in
the making of the absurd theories trying to incriminate an observer?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: JR on Saturday, April 07 2007 @ 03:18 AM EDT |
Could SCO try to ask PJ questions about her work with the OSRM, and then try to
make some connection between SCO's case going bad and that benefiting OSRM and
PJ somehow?
In my opinion it would be the contrary, if PJ were to benefit from something it
would be from SCO partially winning part of their "case" against
IBM... the reasoning for this is that if the SCO litigation proves entirely
fiction, then there is less reason for insurance from OSRM.
Is my logic better than the SCOlogic?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- SCOtheory - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 07 2007 @ 04:02 AM EDT
- Dont believe - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 07 2007 @ 12:57 PM EDT
- Dont believe - Authored by: JR on Saturday, April 07 2007 @ 05:53 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 07 2007 @ 02:30 PM EDT |
| Could you imagine having the audacity of being a member of the OSDL? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jpvlsmv on Monday, April 09 2007 @ 03:59 PM EDT |
From the article:
Ms. Jones claims to have copyrighted and to
maintain Groklaw personally. and
Groklaw is copyrighted
and maintained by Ms. Jones personally
While Pamela owns the
interest in her contributions, as well as any editorial work she does to select,
collate, organize, etc. the combined "groklaw" work, the ownership of the
individual posts remains with the original poster.
So PJ's commentary text
is "hers", and this comment (except for the part quoted from the court filing)
is "mine". tSCOg seems to want to mix up what other people have said on
groklaw, with what PJ is able to testify about.
Note where tSCOg alleges
that "postings to that effect [(that PJ's LOA was staged to avoid service)] even
appeared on her own website" -- As if PJ had posted her own
confession.
--Joe [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Qui bono? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 13 2007 @ 09:07 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: mikb on Monday, April 09 2007 @ 11:20 PM EDT |
I've got RedHat's Truth Happens
video open on my desktop, and I reckon PJ can take comfort in the thought she's
now on line 3 of the famous Gandhi
quote (this Redhat version is different from what quotedb
gives).
- First they ignore you...
- Then they laugh at
you...
- Then they fight you...
- Then you
win...
She and Groklaw have already been through the first two
lines....
As a member of GL since fairly early (and lurking for months
before my first post :-) ) I am confident we can look forward to reaching line
4. It's just a shame it's taking so long! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Superbiskit on Tuesday, April 10 2007 @ 09:24 AM EDT |
(setf lawyer-p nil)
On January 30, 2007, SCO's
counsel issued a subpoena in the United States District Court for the District
of Connecticut, compelling Ms. Jones to appear for a deposition on February 21,
2007. Since that time, a process server has repeatedly sought to locate and
personally serve Ms. Jones with the subpoena, without
success.
Since PJ, whom I have every reason to trust, says she has
not been uncommonly hard to find, how does this statement not constitute
perjury? Even lawyers aren't allowed to flat out lie to the Court, are
they?
Some of the above seems to suggest they consider the mere existence of
on-line discussion to be effective service. Are they likely to now claim PJ has
ignored an order of the Court and should be aprehended?---
Cetero
censeo Collegium SCO esse delendam. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
