Feeds

back to article SCO tries to grok Pamela Jones (again)

SCO Group has asked a US court to reel in the reclusive legal blogger Pamela Jones of Groklaw fame in its arcane Linux intellectual property prosecutions of Novell and IBM. In a filing that draws heavily on press articles - including one from your very own El Reg, SCO said Jones's testimony is relevant to its case. The …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Pamela Jones = Integrity

Nonsense... Her “blog” of the truth is justified and backed up with facts.

All of the results of this long trial was set in stone by SCO group and its own actions, which are now headed for judgment soon in the courts.

This reflexive lashing out by SCO group reminds me of the dark shadow world demon from deep below in the mines from “Lord of the Rings” lashing out to the wizard who is preventing it from leaving its dark world and causing a greater destruction in the world of the living.

Soon SCO Group will be nothing more than a mark in the dustbin of history, were it belongs.

0
0

SCO shows true colors with Groklaw

SCO shows their true colors in attempting to depose Pamela Jones of Groklaw; and their colors are pretty damn ugly.

Darl McBride, CEO of SCO group claimed almost a year ago that SCO had almost all details of who was behind Groklaw, and it was not who you would "think it was". Mr. McBride went on to boast that his unmasking of this Ms. Jones is impending very "soon".

After a year, SCO admits they can not even find Ms. Jones to serve her, let alone "unmask" her. This kind of statement may seem to be extreme hyporbole coming from a CEO - but it is just the latest in a never-seeming-to-end run of public statments made by Mr. McBride and SCO that is never backed up.

It seems all that SCO has to say relies on the listener presuming that SCO speaks only the truth. Take Mr. McBrides statements that there were "literally millions of lines of code" from SCO's UNIX software "dumped into Linux". After more than three years into the lawsuit that IBM did this dumping, the lawsuit now revolves around less than 150 lines of code. When even these relatively few lines of code are analyzed, particularly after SCO admitted that there was no trade secrets in UNIX as originally claimed, represent less than .15% of SCO's original claim. That makes a 99.85% error on SCO's part.

The real telling part is that even the few lines of code remaining, SCO has as much admitted that NONE of these lines of code come from their disputed copyrights of UNIX. SCO is laying claim to code, that SCO admits was developed solely by IBM, merely because IBM developers may have had exposure to the original UNIX code at some time.

The claims are more ridiculous than this broad description. What has this to do with Pamela Jones and Groklaw? Well, as shown by the brief description above, SCO is all about spreading Fear, Uncertainy and Doubt (aka, FUD) about Linux, and nothing about real substance. While SCO is watching its lawsuit (rightfully) fall around its ears, they are now trying to smear a member of the public, who has accessed public records and competently commented on them. SCO does not like the comments Pamela Jones draws. Therefore, they will attempt the same FUD about Ms. Jones as they attemtped to do with Linux.

Whether Ms. Jones' comments are right or wrong, she has every right to espouse them. That is basic American constitutional rights, 101. For SCO to attempt to shut her down by using lawyers to harass her, is about the most underhanded, anti-freedom ploy they can play. Shut up your critics with lawyers. Nice.

Judge for yourself. Whether or not you agree with Pamela, it is obvious she is just reporting her views based on public records. Look up http://www.groklaw.com. Read her articles and peruse the sight. If there is anything worthy of the legal terrorism SCO is trying to bring on Ms. Jones, it escapes my limited understanding.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Story is slightly wrong

SCO isn't asking in this motion for the court to find or "reel in" Pamela Jones.

Here is what is happening.

1. They want to question (depose) PJ about issues related to the SCO v Novell case. They have been wanting to do this since late January.

2. They currently have until about the end of May to find and question ("depose") PJ in SCO v Novell. It is up to them to go and find, and officially tell ("serve") PJ, before they can do the questioning session ("deposition"). Apparently they have been unable to serve PJ - but it seems possible that they may be looking in the wrong place - see PJ's comments on Groklaw.

3. SCO is now asking that whatever the PJ questions/answers come from the PJ deposition, can also be used as evidence in the SCO vs IBM case,

What they haven't explained is:

(a) Why questions/answers of PJ, about matters that took place years ago, should be allowed in the IBM case. The deadline for depositions in SCO vs IBM passed over a year ago

(b) Why they asking to add questions/answers of PJ to SCO vs IBM, now, in April -- when they could have asked in January

They do however:

(c) Say they are going to look really hard for PJ, and if they don't find her, that they may LATER ask for the court to serve her some other way..... but this part is actually incidental to the current motion which is simply about adding PJ's questions/answers at the deposition as evidence to SCO vs IBM

0
0
Silver badge

Wrong sub title

It should be "Catch Me If You Can".

Go to IMdB and get the details. Great movie!!

Live free Groklaw!!

0
0
This topic is closed for new posts.