RSSGroklaw's Jones Confident Amid SCO Deposition Summons
By Scott M. Fulton, III | Published April 6, 2007, 2:32 PM
PERSPECTIVE - Calling her the "self-proclaimed operator of an internet website known as 'Groklaw,"' attorneys for UNIX vendor SCO Group filed a motion on Monday stating it is seeking to serve blogger Pamela Jones with a subpoena to be deposed in its intellectual property case against Linux vendor Novell. SCO also seeks to use the deposition content in its seemingly interminable case against IBM.
In its memorandum, SCO does not actually lay out a case for how Jones may have damaged the company directly, though it cites a multitude of press reports as "evidence" that the company hopes to prove is relevant, including some that allege a financial or material connection between Jones and IBM - albeit several steps removed.
One press report cited by SCO alleges Jones received as much as $50,000 from the Open Source Development Lab, which is associated with Novell and which receives some of its funding from IBM; and another was a recently published InformationWeek story stating that the University of North Carolina service that hosts Groklaw for free, also received funding from IBM. IBM since issued a statement saying it has no connection to Groklaw's editorial content.
Some of these allegations reported elsewhere, in my judgment, have either been without merit or tremendously flimsy, and not worthy of mention in BetaNews to this point.
Groklaw is a technology legal affairs blog, a majority of whose space over the years has been devoted to coverage of the SCO v. IBM and SCO v. Novell trials. Jones is a paralegal with experience in interpreting legal documents, and her site has presented nearly all public documents related to the case. However, the SCO memorandum alleges, time stamps on documents recently presented on Groklaw indicate its source for those documents must be IBM itself, and not the public record.
In Groklaw, Jones has presented interpretation and commentary, which has clearly sided against SCO over the years, in no uncertain terms. But as she has maintained in public as well as to me and her other colleagues, Groklaw is her own project, and she maintains the right not only to interpret public documents but to render her personal, non-binding opinion with regards to their content and their intent. The site also collects a substantial amount of commentary from other individuals, who may or may not have legal expertise but who certainly appear to know how to make their opinions heard.
The SCO memorandum of last Monday raises the question of whether an individual blogger has the right to influence public opinion in an important civil case. What the memo does not address - and perhaps cannot - is whether a sampling of public opinion is necessary for a judge to render a ruling or opinion in a civil case. Most judges would probably maintain that the interpretation of law is not a political matter, and thus would cast doubt as to whether a deposition from Jones, as SCO claims, "bears on this litigation."
At the same time, the memorandum also appears intended to cast suspicion as to Jones' identity, despite the question of whether her identity or opinion or the opinions of Groklaw's readers bears relevance to the outcome of this case. The memo appears to promise that Jones' deposition would be important and relevant, based only on the word of the press, upon whose own integrity the memo would simultaneously cast doubt unless it intends to suggest that certain blogs don't belong to the press at large while certain blogs do - the criteria for determination having yet to be presented, and perhaps being well beyond the purview of this case's judges to even consider.
SCO alleges it is having difficulty serving Jones with a subpoena, using press sources as leverage to cast doubt upon her very identity, as though "the press" is both a personal address and a professional affiliation, and as though it is the responsibility of the press to "cough up" her identity. Some might compare this tactic to the "guilt-by-association" witch hunts of the 1950s, though in a kind of dark-comic, melodramatic light.
Without stating so directly, the memo alleges Jones may have tried to use a personal vacation as a way to avoid being served with a subpoena, though on Groklaw yesterday, she maintains she actually didn't go anywhere during her time off, and could have been served easily at any time.
"Let me reiterate: No one came to serve me that I ever knew about," Jones writes. "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."
A bit of personal viewpoint, if I may: Throughout this case, a number of parties and even some individuals in the press, with the noteworthy exception of Pamela Jones, have tried to make this story about themselves. It's as if Groklaw managed to prove that one individual can indeed be influential, but they can't seem to re-create the formula to build a similar platform for themselves.
There's also perhaps a bit of envy on the part of some observers that a following of thousands can be assembled around an essentially anonymous writer who wishes to maintain her anonymity, and who has aptly demonstrated her legal right to do so.
The truth is that this case is only about individuals such as Jones parenthetically, and while this case has established one blog as a trusted source for news on this and other cases, Groklaw could not have risen to a position of prominence had it not provided some much-needed insight into this important question: To whom do ideas expressed as software truly belong?
In the end, despite what may be efforts to deflect the public's attention to focus instead on little sideshows, the final decision in this case will be about that central question. It may be fear as to the impact of the answer to that question on the way the principals conduct their business, that is compelling them to deflect judges' and the public's attention, at this late hour, to other matters that don't really affect the general public all that much, including the relative anonymity of one blogger and her right to render an opinion online.
3:45 pm March 7, 2007 - I asked Pamela via e-mail what her plans were once the SCO case is finally over. She responded first, as far as Groklaw is concerned, it will continue as a software legal resource. She cited a Netcraft survey that places Groklaw as the #758 most visited site on the entire Web, which she says, "tells me that Groklaw has a life of its own now, independent of SCO coverage, so 'the end of SCO' won't be the end of Groklaw."
As for herself? "First, I'm going to find a beach and swim and swim and swim, and then float on my back a while, gazing up at the clouds and the blue sky, and listening to sea gulls call, until I can relax and am my happy, simple unstressed self once again."
[Full disclosure: Pamela Jones has provided commentary to BetaNews on other issues, and is considered a friend and colleague.]
>> By hatruong
>> She lies about this vacation, sh
You have proof this is a lie?
The way we have proof Darl lied about millions of lines of code?
Mountains of literal copying?
3 teams of deep divers?
About BSD being in violation?
About BSF working "on contingency"? (they were NOT on contingency - even Laura Didio admitted that she was lied to about that. Funny she never admits she was used as a complete tool, by Darl and Sontag, her reputation left for dead.)
About having enough evidence to go to court 3 years ago?
About Caldera (dba SCOG) not being the Utah corporation Caldera but rather the California corporation Santa Cruz Operation? Even after Judge Wells ruled SCOG is not Santa Cruz Operation?
>> She lies about this vacation
You have proof this is a lie?
I hope you're not Daniel Lyons, and I hope the source of your "proof" is not Maureen O'Gara, who seems to burn with a white-hot hate for PJ.
Lyons does too, or so it seems.
Score: 0
|She lies about this vacation, she did not accidentally took her health break when her deposition served, if you can believe her about this, you also a liar, thanhk
Score: 0
|SCOG fed Lyons and O'Gara sealed, confidential information - that SCOG's lawyers swore to the court they would not release.
Groklaw never showed that kind of information.
http://www.groklaw.net/a...?story=2007040623380173
All of us who have been watching this fiaSCOG for a long time have known this is typical of SCOG - accuse innocent others of what SCOG did with prejudice, malice aforethought, and absolute, complete lack of ethics.
And beyond feeding reporters who hate Linux and/or IBM with secret, confidential information, let's not even get into using "friendly" analysts who hate Linux and/or IBM (Laura Didio and Rob Enderle) to push SCOG's lies and FUD onto the public.
We know that Enderle at the very least has admitted to being paid for his opinion (no direct admission in the SCOG case yet, though - although since Enderle has stopped supporting SCOG one might guess he's not being paid anymore).
Score: 0
|This whole lawsuit is a farce. It is clearly an attempt by SCO to slow down a passionate blogger and discredit the company they battle in court. May SCO go down where it belongs -- the sewer. It is a recurring pattern of lies and deceit.
Score: 0
|The Judge(s) in either the IBM or Novell case have only to let one shoe drop in IBM or Novell's favor for SCO's house of cards to come tumbling down. May it be soon!
Score: 0
|In SCO v IBM:
1)Discovery is closed
2)Depositions were under a quota agreed by SCO
3)SCO started this by proclaiming millions of lines of Linux were stolen from SCO. They have provided not an iota of evidence showing that is true.
Deposing PJ is irrelevant to both cases. The judge should throw the book at SCO. A flogging would be in order. This is the most lopsided harassment suit I have ever seen. It is a shame on the judicial system of the USA that this case was not thrown out long ago. There were two big signals that SCO v IBM had no merit:
1)They could not present any evidence of wrong doing without first doing a fishing expedition. Why bring the case?
2)Instead of pushing to accelerate the pace of the court proceedings, they sought endless delay through stupid, poorly prepared motions.
On the first point, SCO insisted, and the magistrate gave SCO access to IBM's entire source code inventory for AIX, claimed it would take years to do proper search and only did 300 hours. For that, they came up with a few hundred lines of header files that would be similar in any POSIX system.
On the second point, instead of being the aggressor and pressing for the day of trial, SCO asked for delays repeatedly, filed huge motions, usually not granted for good reason, and made dozens of errors in poor documents. They tried to redraft their claims a third time. The judges and IBM could never get them to state clearly what IBM was supposed to have done.
Score: 0
|What is wrong with SCO? Don't they remember that it was they who brough suit against IBM? Don't they remember that it was they who were the aggressors in this entire fiasco? It seems that they are determined to blame someone - anyone - for causing their failure. Haven't they yet realized that in a free market place, they have to compete by building something worthwhile - no, not just worthwhile, but better than their competition. If they had used their resources to do something constructive they might still be a player, but no, they had to tilt at windmills.
It looks like Microsoft was the big winner in this whole thing. They paid for a license, which provided SCO with the funds to start the suit - and Microsoft was able to close the case file on SCO, knowing that SCO didn't know how to use money properly. IBM had to spend time and money defending itself rather than improving its product. SCO destroyed itself. Microsoft kept right on doing what it does best - writing buggy code and charging outrageous prices simply because it can.
Score: 0
|That the SCO suit is allowed to go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on only demonstrates that amerika is the most idiotic country on the planet.
All it ever took was one judge with the cojones to tell SCO: Put up or shutup, and then make SCO and its backers (Microsoft!) pay tens of billions in damages. I blame the judges for letting the silliest mess since Ken Starr never end. (Hey, but meanwhile the system and the lawyers continue to make a living off this shame.) Pamela Jones is a true hero, because as Einstein said: "The test of truth is experience."
Score: 0
|>> Suspicion of improper access to public
>> documents is clear evidence
How can public access to public document be improper?
you mean non-public?
That's a Good criticism of MOG, Didio, Lyons and Enderle.
Thanks.
Score: 0
|IBM did not depose Laura Didio, despite Didio pushing many SCOG and MS lies and FUD ("SCO has a strong case", "Darl and Sontag anre not showboats - they wouldn't do this if they didn't have a strong case", the indemnity stuff)
But SCOG needs to depose Pamela Jones, who has never echoed anything from IBM? (hard to echo anything, since IBM has said nothing).
Score: 0
|I have never "met" Pamela Jones. I have exchanged
email with Pamela Jones and have spoken to her on
the telephone. I do not know where she lives. I
don't know which state she lives in. In fact, I
don't even know which country she lives in.
Should I care?
I don't think so. I have been reading Groklaw for over three years. I have contributed to
Groklaw.
The SCO Group's lawyers are trying to draw the
public's attention away from the fact that they
lack a scintilla of evidence or moral fibre by
attempting to impugn the character of a woman
who shies from garish publicity.
Fie!
Score: 0
|Suspicion of improper access to public documents is clear evidence of shenanigans, and the pattern suggests collusive shenanigans, which is the worst kind. We can all be thankful that it's still not illegal for adults to make connections without dots.
Score: 0
|"Hey Farva, what's the name of that restaurant you like with all the goofy [stuff] on the walls and the mozzarella sticks?" - Super Troopers
Score: 0
|