×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

SCO Vs. Groklaw

kdawson posted more than 7 years ago | from the timely-break dept.

The Courts 477

Conrad Mazian points us to an article in Forbes reporting that the SCO Group is trying to subpoena Pamela Jones of Groklaw. Except they can't find her. A few days ago PJ posted a note on Groklaw saying that she is taking some time away from the blog for health reasons; she didn't mention any SCO deposition. SCO's lawyers apparently believe that "Pamela Jones" does not exist and that Groklaw is penned by a team of IBM lawyers.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

477 comments

Wouldn't be the first time (5, Funny)

MagikSlinger (259969) | more than 7 years ago | (#18007312)

Remember that fictional movie critic Sony created awhile back? Maybe Pamela eloped with him? :-)

Re:Wouldn't be the first time (4, Insightful)

numbski (515011) | more than 7 years ago | (#18007342)

...or.....

Darl is a paranoid maniac.

Wait, how exactly is this news? We all already knew Darl was a paranoid maniac. kdawson, are you trolling for pageviews or something? ;) Or maybe you're not kdawson at all. I think you're Taco masquerading as someone else trying to get all rich. Yeah yeah yea....aw crap, then men in black suits are at the front door. WTH did I put that tin foil........!!!!

Does it matter? (5, Interesting)

ZachPruckowski (918562) | more than 7 years ago | (#18007322)

As far as I know, everything hosted on Groklaw has been a matter of public record, and the blog has been clear in its anti-SCO bias from the get-go. There's no gag order in place, is there? And there's no rule that says you need to be honest on the Internet. I mean, since the info is true, does it legally have any bearing if PJ is one of IBM's lawyers, a real person, or the Easter Bunny?

Also, if Groklaw was run by IBM lawyers, why would it get involved in the Sony rootkit fiasco [groklaw.net] ? I mean, IBM wouldn't want to come out against Sony if they could avoid it (supplying the PS3 with parts as they are) and also, why have your lawyers handle stuff like that?

Delay (4, Insightful)

Xenographic (557057) | more than 7 years ago | (#18007442)

It's yet another SCO delay tactic, in my estimation. I think everyone should know by now just how far they've drawn out this process. There was a mention on Pacer that said something about getting an extension of time to do more depositions.

Oh, and of course you'd be right to think that they're probably trying to make her personal information public. I think most people here should remember when Maureen O'Gara wrote that nasty piece with information gathered by SCO's PIs, who have been stalking PJ for a long time now, so far as I'm aware.

As for what they'll do with that information, I don't know. But SCO put out fake signs back when they were picketed, so no matter what they do I bet it'll be something mean. Of course, if *that* happens, you can bet that someone will be looking up Darl's home phone number and posting it in that Slashdot story. You know, just in case someone wanted to help him understand why people don't like it when you post their personal information... :]

Re:Delay (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18007792)

you can bet that someone will be looking up Darl's home phone number and posting it

801-555-3275

Re:Delay (1, Informative)

plover (150551) | more than 7 years ago | (#18007840)

I think most people here should remember when Maureen O'Gara wrote that nasty piece
Almost as nasty as this piece [slashdot.org] about the MoGTrolls.

Re:Does it matter? (5, Insightful)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 7 years ago | (#18007620)

Too many people are hung up on the messenger as opposed to the message. That's why the big stink over phoney bloggers. In fact look at the people who preach up and down about Jesus. It's all about the man, and little if any about his message. I've noticed the same thing with some people right here on slashdot with those who won't listen the ACs no matter what was posted. If they wish to remain ignorant, it's their choice, and their loss, but it makes me have second thoughts as to whether they should allowed to vote in anything outside their local elections. I don't like the thought of people from Utah voting for politicians who believe they have a right to break into my computer in Peoria.

Re:Does it matter? (-1, Offtopic)

UnknownSoldier (67820) | more than 7 years ago | (#18007860)

> In fact look at the people who preach up and down about Jesus. It's all about the man, and little if any about his message.

Yeap. Which is so ironic, since that wasn't even his name! (The 'J' glyph wasn't invented until the 17th century, AFTER the 1611 KJV [eliyah.com] printing.)

Furthermore, they worship a false god. i.e. ""Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone"

Re:Does it matter? (4, Funny)

jours (663228) | more than 7 years ago | (#18007648)

> And there's no rule that says you need to be honest on the Internet.

And it's a good thing too..otherwise we wouldn't have anyone left writing article summaries for Slashdot.

Re:Does it matter? (4, Funny)

malsdavis (542216) | more than 7 years ago | (#18007740)

"I mean, since the info is true, does it legally have any bearing if PJ is one of IBM's lawyers, a real person, or the Easter Bunny?"

There certainly are legal consequences if PJ is infact the Easter Bunny. Massive consueqences indeed!

For at the moment Easter Bunnies do not in fact have any legal rights in the USA or any other country. Many laws would need to be changed and the source of his/her easter eggs found and appropriately taxed!

SCO really are nuts (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18007324)

Trust SCO to accuse someone of being a bunch of acrobatic midgets lawyers in a trench coat.

Well, it is a known fact... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18007326)

That there are no real females on the internet. I think SCO may have something here.

Re:Well, it is a known fact... (4, Funny)

SaDan (81097) | more than 7 years ago | (#18007362)

Probably some FBI agent posing as a 13 year old girl with an agenda against SCO.

Re:Well, it is a known fact... (1, Redundant)

Teresita (982888) | more than 7 years ago | (#18007872)

That there are no real females on the internet. I think SCO may have something here.

I resemble that remark.

I'd be stoked (4, Interesting)

WasterDave (20047) | more than 7 years ago | (#18007330)

I'll be absolutely stoked if IBM made the whole thing up. Best ... astrotuf ... ever!!

But somehow I don't think so. Somehow I think she's just kinda knackered.

Dave

So what? (4, Insightful)

seanadams.com (463190) | more than 7 years ago | (#18007334)

Why would SCO want to depose Jones? SCO officials declined to comment about the matter. But in the past, company officials have said that Jones and her blog, called "Groklaw," were acting as a front for IBM (nyse: IBM - news - people )--an assertion they may hope to prove in a legal setting. Sounds pretty far fetched, but so what even if she is? Is that even illegal?

What are the grounds for a subpoena? I don't think she has ever made even a passing hint that she has any inside knowledge of anything. On the contrary, it's all just commentary on publicly available filings.

However, I will say that the timing and content of her blog post is totally consistent with someone trying not to be found. Just rm -fP your files and don't log in to the server for a while. As long as you haven't left a trail through billing or domain registration, you'd be nearly impossible to find.

Re:So what? (4, Interesting)

thedarknite (1031380) | more than 7 years ago | (#18007498)

Apparently, they want to be able to show in court that there is a direct relationship between herself and IBM. Although I don't see how that will help them at all.

Also this little snippet doesn't make much sense either if SCO are claiming that PJ is an IBM shill.

The SCO vs. IBM lawsuit won't go to trial until a related case, SCO vs. Novell (nasdaq: NOVL - news - people ), has been decided. That case, which is scheduled to be tried later this year, is the one for which SCO is attempting to take a deposition from Jones.

It won't help one bit, of course. (5, Interesting)

Xenographic (557057) | more than 7 years ago | (#18007598)

I don't think it will help SCO at all. I think it's just a dirty trick they're using to punish PJ for speaking out against what they've been doing. But we all knew that, huh?

I hope that when she feels better again, she finds some good way to respond to this deposition without giving SCO any opening to make all of her personal details public (like Maureen O'Gara [wikipedia.org] once attempted to) and without opening herself up to any other form of harassment.

And I don't blame her one bit for being sick. Just thinking about the crap they're pulling now is enough to make me sick. She has every right to feel like a psycho ex is stalking her :(

Given SCO's history of harassing her... (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18007566)

It wouldn't surprise me in the least if they stepped it up before actually trying to serve her, knowing she couldn't be found if they did that.

If you have any doubts as to SCO's character, this sums it up:

http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=148847&c id=12476453 [slashdot.org]

Re:So what? (5, Insightful)

scoove (71173) | more than 7 years ago | (#18007568)

I've participated on Groklaw since the beginning, and would suggest that SCO is very troubled if this is all its legal team is left to manifest on.

It's comparable to Captain Queeg's determined investigation of the theft of ice cream in the classic Bogart film, The Caine Mutiny [wikipedia.org] . Lacking anything else of substance to confirm his paranoid belief of mass insubordination, Captain Queeg becomes consumed with the delusion that a conspiracy is involved in the disappearance of ice cream on his ship. Unfortunately, this paranoia and further indecision under crisis results in his being relieved of duty.

SCO's relief of duty isn't far away, from reviewing their financials (absent third party financing at this point, 2007 should be their last as an operating concern). Pursuing delusions of a grand IBM conspiracy through the proxy of Pamela is unfortunate. I can certainly understand the absolute frustration some of Salt Lake City's finest socialites must feel in being beaten by unworthy middle class losers, open source geeks and an old money company like IBM. They were confident that political connections, "contributions" to candidates like dear Senator Hatch, ownership of the state judicial system and other entitlements the Salt Lake City elite expect on their home turf would extend to this litigation. Those born with the proverbial silver spoon affixed to their rear egress-orifice simply can't conceive that those from lessor social classes could ever best them.

Having closed at $1.01 today, SCO investors (even those who have shorted the stock) need to remember that when this security stresses, liquidity will be impossible to come by. Expect some real fireworks soon when shareholders discover liquidity necessary to exit is gone and a "bank run" occurs. Those considering shareholder action need to move before the management team constructs their parachutes in the next month or so, leaving nothing for creditors and litigants.

Time's running out...

Re:So what? (1)

scoove (71173) | more than 7 years ago | (#18007682)

and just a minor correction... Queeg was obsessed with the theft of strawberries, to which he overturned the entire ship, not ice cream as I previously indicated.

A great movie if you've never seen it.

How about an alternative conspiracy theory? (2, Interesting)

michaelmalak (91262) | more than 7 years ago | (#18007730)

However, I will say that the timing and content of her blog post is totally consistent with someone trying not to be found
Instead of giving credence to SCO's conspiracy theory, how about the one that presents itself at face value -- that she really is ill, and SCO wants to kick her while she's down?

This is silly (4, Informative)

greg_barton (5551) | more than 7 years ago | (#18007338)

See her wikipedia page. [wikipedia.org] It lists her as author of several articles and co-author of a book. At some point she had to meet with editors or sign a contract, information about all of which is probably subject to subpoena. If SCO hasn't looked into this they're just spreading FUD. (The wikipedia article is the first listing when googling "Pamela Jones," for goodness sake: linky [google.com]

Re:This is silly (5, Funny)

seanadams.com (463190) | more than 7 years ago | (#18007388)

IBM wrote that wiki page. And the book in question does not exist. Don't bother posting an amazon link. They're in on it too.

Re:This is silly (1)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 7 years ago | (#18007390)

Wow! I didn't know that she was also a British painter! Very prolific woman, that Pamela. Either that or IBM's lawyers are also running an art business on the side.

Re:This is silly (2, Interesting)

christurkel (520220) | more than 7 years ago | (#18007398)

No, you dont have to meet an author face to face when publishing a book. Lawrence Watt-Evans, an author friend of mine, met his editor for the first time last year after five years of dealing with him. This is not uncommon. Publishers know about telephones, email, etc.

Re:This is silly (1)

greg_barton (5551) | more than 7 years ago | (#18007464)

Publishers know about telephones, email, etc.

Duh. This means there's a trail to be followed.
And I assume at some point your friend was paid. There's a paper trail there, which could also be followed. That's my point.

Re:This is silly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18007790)

I've written several books, and never met my editorial team. I didn't even have to provide a social security number. Authorship of books is not a proof of existance.

Sure she exists... (5, Funny)

Nimloth (704789) | more than 7 years ago | (#18007340)

Says so in her Wikipedia entry [wikipedia.org] :

"Others falsely accused her of being associated with IBM."
Seems quite clear to me she's not associated with IBM... I guess SCO doesn't know about Wikipedia.

Re:Sure she exists... (0, Redundant)

arth1 (260657) | more than 7 years ago | (#18007420)

Seems quite clear to me she's not associated with IBM... I guess SCO doesn't know about Wikipedia.

Yeah, cause we all know that if it's in Wikipedia, it must be true...

She may or she may not be, but that there's an unreferenced claim on Wikipedia that this is false doesn't tell us less gullible people much.

Re:Sure she exists... (5, Funny)

hunterx11 (778171) | more than 7 years ago | (#18007438)

She may or she may not be, but that there's an unreferenced claim on Wikipedia that this is false doesn't tell us less gullible people much.
I am afraid to inform you sir, that you are decidedly not one of the less gullible people.

Re:Sure she exists... (1)

codegen (103601) | more than 7 years ago | (#18007502)

I guess SCO doesn't know about Wikipedia.

I would guess that in SCO's mind, the Wikipedia entry is also written by the IBM attorneys

Pamela Jones, a.k.a. PJ, exists. (5, Funny)

AllParadox (979193) | more than 7 years ago | (#18007344)

I, however, am a figment of my own imagination.

Re:Pamela Jones, a.k.a. PJ, exists. (3, Funny)

hunterx11 (778171) | more than 7 years ago | (#18007492)

I once dreamed that I was an IBM lawyer, but the dream was so vivid that I cannot be sure if I am not now an IBM lawyer dreaming that I am posting on /.

Re:Pamela Jones, a.k.a. PJ, exists. (1)

Grog6 (85859) | more than 7 years ago | (#18007696)

Nice to see that you are still posting, somewhere.

I miss the legal analysis you did. (Assuming that this isn't someone different...)

The greatest trick Pamela Jones ever pulled... (5, Funny)

karmaflux (148909) | more than 7 years ago | (#18007346)

...was convincing SCO she didn't exist.

Seriously waiting for Darl McBride to drop his coffee mug and see the name of IBM's lead attorney printed on the bottom.

Re:The greatest trick Pamela Jones ever pulled... (1)

Qzukk (229616) | more than 7 years ago | (#18007372)

The biggest question about this whole "doesn't exist" thing is whether it means that Maureen O'Gara was stalking a figment of her imagination earlier.

Re:The greatest trick Pamela Jones ever pulled... (1)

spotlight2k3 (652521) | more than 7 years ago | (#18007878)

the next greatest trick would be for her to convince sco they didn't exist.

Timeline (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 7 years ago | (#18007378)

PJ taking a break for health reasons: 02/10

Forbes TFA: 02/13/07

FTFA "SCO tried last week to serve a subpoena to Jones" = 02/04 - 02/10

What I don't get is on what grounds SCO can claim that they need to depose PJ, it isn't like she is material to their case.

Couldn't they have just hired a P.I. to find her?

Re:Timeline (2, Interesting)

numbski (515011) | more than 7 years ago | (#18007422)

Have you every seen someone mess with a cat? Poke at it, prod at it harass it? Perhaps you're just playing, and the cat starts to get wound up...

Now someone else comes along, perhaps its owner, reaches down to pet it...cat bites owner.

Why? Misdirected aggression. Taking things out on whatever is near it just because it is so intensely focused on something troubling it, that it can only focus on that trouble.

Funny. The solution to misdirected aggression in a cat is to put the cat in a dark room, no lights, no noise. Nothing to further agitate it.

Seems we need to toss Darl in a dark room, no lights, no noise...

Re:Timeline (1)

codegen (103601) | more than 7 years ago | (#18007474)

Couldn't they have just hired a P.I. to find her?

Given the problems HP had with using PIs, I would think even SCO would think twice before.....

...You're right...

Good question. I'm not sure what legal information a PI would have access to that the lawyers wouldn't. I guess they could try and pretext Groklaw's ISP, however the consequences if they got caught (daydreams for a moment about the possiblities) would be rather counter productive.

Re:Timeline (1)

cdrudge (68377) | more than 7 years ago | (#18007716)

There's nothing wrong with using PIs. When a company uses PIs to gain telephone records of their board of director under false pretenses/false IDs, there is something wrong with that.

Re:Timeline (0, Offtopic)

nihaopaul (782885) | more than 7 years ago | (#18007480)

PJ taking a break for health reasons: 02/10
Couldn't they have just hired a P.I. to find her?
i'd rather pay for a B.J oh wait, wrong place...

Re:Timeline (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18007534)

Couldn't they have just hired a P.I. to find her?
With what?

From what I've read (primarily on Groklaw, natch), SCO is just about flat broke.

did yall check the whois for groklaw? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18007384)

tooo funny!
Registrant:
      Domains by Proxy, Inc.
      DomainsByProxy.com
      15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
      Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
      United States

      Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com)
      Domain Name: GROKLAW.COM
            Created on: 26-Sep-02
            Expires on: 26-Sep-09
            Last Updated on: 06-Dec-05

go check out http://domainsbyproxy.com/ [domainsbyproxy.com]

awesome.. ;)

-dirtbag

Re:did yall check the whois for groklaw? (2, Informative)

jours (663228) | more than 7 years ago | (#18007670)

> go check out http://domainsbyproxy.com/ [domainsbyproxy.com]
>
> awesome.. ;)

That's the service GoDaddy uses when you chose "Make this domain private". They hold the registration and then just forward all the e-mail (and US mail too I believe) to whatever they have on record for you.

Most registrars have something similar.

Re:did yall check the whois for groklaw? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18007724)

So... even though the registration information is private, we do know a little bit. It seems that the DNS, website, and email are hosted by UNC.

$ dig +short -t NS groklaw.net
ns2.unc.edu.
ns.unc.edu.
$ dig +short -t MX groklaw.net
0 mail.ibiblio.org.
$ dig +short groklaw.net
152.46.7.81
$ dig +short vhost.ibiblio.org
152.46.7.81

<ConspiracyTheory>
The directory of ibiblio.org is Paul Jones. Perhaps that's the real PJ :)
</ConspiracyTheory>

Re:did yall check the whois for groklaw? (3, Informative)

Achromatic1978 (916097) | more than 7 years ago | (#18007674)

Optimism. There have been several cases where GoDaddy and DomainsByProxy gave up that information, even without subpoena - notably, recently, a certain security blog that got a lot of coverage on Slashdot a week or so ago.

Re:did yall check the whois for groklaw? (2, Insightful)

jachim69 (125669) | more than 7 years ago | (#18007752)

Yeah. Awesome.

Until GoDaddy decided that one unfounded letter is enough for them to shut down your whole domain^W^W^W^W^Wreveal your true identity.

A slight to EFF? (4, Insightful)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 7 years ago | (#18007392)

FTA (emphasis mine):

Other companies have taken legal action against bloggers only to have those actions backfire. In January, Apple (nasdaq: AAPL - news - people ) was reportedly forced to pay $700,000 to cover the legal expenses of bloggers against whom it had tried to take legal action, thanks to the efforts of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a San Francisco group that defends bloggers.

Oh, so that's what EFF does.


Good thing Forbes cleared that up for me, I thought they do a lot more than that [eff.org] . And what does San Fran have to do with this case? EFF is an national organization -- and though it is based in SF, the article misrepresents tham as being a local group.

Re:A slight to EFF? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18007520)

The language is fine. It's the equivalent of saying "The Marine Corps, an American organization that uses tanks." Yes they have other things besides tanks, and they do tend to go to other places besides the USA.

I'm pretty sure the EFF takes no affront to the fact that an article says they are based out of San Francisco and defend the free speech of bloggers among other things :P

Re:A slight to EFF? (3)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 7 years ago | (#18007868)

The language is fine. It's the equivalent of saying "The Marine Corps, an American organization that uses tanks." Yes they have other things besides tanks, and they do tend to go to other places besides the USA.

It's not the equivalent -- most readers will already know what the USMC is. Not so for EFF -- the reason I have a problem with the representation in TFA is that to many Forbes readers, this is probably the first they've heard of EFF. Considering that Forbes is geared towards white-collar businesspeople, many of whom have no particular interest in 'defending bloggers', though they may have an interest in promoting digital freedom in other contexts, I think that it is journalistically irresponsible to define an organization by one small part of their activity.

He might be on to something here (1, Funny)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 7 years ago | (#18007410)

In other news, Darl McBride was overheard saying, "I don't believe that CowboyNeal actually exists. I believe that Slashdot is actually written by a bunch of SCO haters."

Re:He might be on to something here (1)

cgenman (325138) | more than 7 years ago | (#18007556)

I believe that Slashdot is actually written by a bunch of SCO haters.

That must be the first sane thought Darl has had in years. Of course, at this point, he could have thought the same about people from Sourceforge, MacWorld, the FAA, the Nebraska Pipe Fitter's Union, The Girl Scouts...

I'm guessing he doesn't get many christmas cards these days.

Re:He might be on to something here (1)

selex (551564) | more than 7 years ago | (#18007650)

That can't be true. I saw his picture in PC Magazine last week, which is now sitting in the garbage because thats were the magazine belongs, but anyway how can you photograph someone that doesn't exist. PC Magazine reads can't be delusional about his existence, they can be delusional about how much computer knowledge they have.

Selex

Re:He might be on to something here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18007856)

close, but not quite.

Slashdot is actually written by a bunch of Microsoft haters!!!

Delay #... (3, Insightful)

pionzypher (886253) | more than 7 years ago | (#18007426)

Delay tactic #34785 by SCO. No purpose besides attempting to cast more FUD on the issue. If they claim IBM is the PJ from Groklaw after she takes a break; allowing the courts to search for her for weeks/months... It's a good delay tactic.
 
  I sincerely hope SCO rots in hell and as for Mr. DM... A jail cell looks nice.

More SCO FUD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18007428)

Groklaw has been around since before SCO's litigation began, and SCO already hired a private detective to find out where she lives months ago, and then provided it to one of their media contacts who was writing whatever BS SCO was feeding them.

Prerhaps she's on a much needed vacation? (4, Funny)

wwrmn (42399) | more than 7 years ago | (#18007446)

I envision the iced Coronas, discarded laptop, and legalese drawn lazily in the sand by a toe.

Enjoy your rest!

Daniel Lyons strikes again (5, Insightful)

whackeroony (240663) | more than 7 years ago | (#18007452)

Slashdot is as stupid for allowing his tripe to be posted here as Forbes is in employing him

I second the emotion! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18007504)

Anyone who doesn't know little Danny Lyons is a hack who writes this junk for ad impressions (thanks for paying him, /.) must be living in bizarro world... or Utah... but I repeat myself.

MOD PARENT UP! (5, Informative)

imroy (755) | more than 7 years ago | (#18007882)

Whoever modded this down is an idiot. The fact is, Daniel Lyons at Forbes has a long history of attacking Groklaw and Pamela Jones. I believe he even once published the address from a 'whois' lookup on groklaw.net, believing that it was Pamela's address. Luckily she'd used a P.O box (or something) in a different state to register the domain. But that gives you indication of the ad hominim attacks that SCO and its supporters indulge in.

Just do a Google search. Sadly, many of these articles have been linked from here on Slashdot, giving Forbes and Daniel the page hits they desire.

Statistical analysis (3, Interesting)

Goonie (8651) | more than 7 years ago | (#18007456)

There's a large amount of work that's been done on statistical author identification. I wonder whether somebody who knows how it works could analyse the Groklaw archives to determine whether the same person wrote all the posts (though you might need to process the text first to remove quotations).

I'm not a regular reader of Groklaw - it's become abundantly clear that SCO is unlikely to win and the case is just going through extended death throes - but on the occasions I've done so PJ's writing style seemed pretty consistent.

Re:Statistical analysis (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18007610)

I personally know several of the maintainers, and contributors. I have also transcribed/proof read doc's. No way is all of the articles written by PJ.

Fully consistant (1)

Xenographic (557057) | more than 7 years ago | (#18007832)

If you read someone's writing enough, you feel like you know them. You recognize it almost as well as you'd recognize their voice. It shows through in their humor, their choice of words, and even mundane things like how they format and punctuate their work.

I've read Groklaw for a very long time now. If you go way back there, to when Darl was making ridiculous pronouncements every week or so and things were hectic, you'll probably find that I submitted more than a few SCO-related stories to Slashdot that all had links pointing back to Groklaw.

In no event did I suspect, even for a moment, that there was anyone other than PJ writing those articles. Okay, true, Mathfox, Marbux, AllParadox and co. have written a Groklaw article or two, but it was under their own names, and it was very clear that the writing changed even if you didn't bother to read who the post was from.

Basically, what I'm saying is that you're 100% right and this is just more SCO BS. They're just trying something sleazy to get back at a poor innocent lady who did nothing but expose all the inconsistencies in their arguments. To me, it's payback, pure and simple. I'm just sorry that PJ is their target.

Re:Statistical analysis (1)

antibryce (124264) | more than 7 years ago | (#18007852)

There's not much to it. You lay out a feature set you'll be measuring similarity with and use some statistical machine learning method (most likely Naive Bayes [wikipedia.org] .) A good paper to get you started is here. [64.233.167.104] That's a link to Google's html translation, the link to the original PDF is at the top.

Personally (3, Funny)

WillRobinson (159226) | more than 7 years ago | (#18007484)

I am looking forward to watching PJ saunter down towards the stand in her red dress, as the crowd throws rose pedals.

I would say that she has a health problem (5, Funny)

andy314159pi (787550) | more than 7 years ago | (#18007494)

A few days ago PJ posted a note on Groklaw saying that she is taking some time away from the blog for health reasons;

SCO's lawyers apparently believe that "Pamela Jones" does not exist
I would say that failing to exist would indeed be a serious health problem that you should probably take time out to treat.

Forbes again. (3, Insightful)

AJWM (19027) | more than 7 years ago | (#18007518)

Hey, this is Forbes. They're a known SCO schill, always eager to publish puff pieces by their reporter whats-his-name (Dan's Lying? something like that) that are basically slightly revised SCO press-releases.

I wouldn't take any of it too seriously.

Work Product Privilege (5, Insightful)

Grond (15515) | more than 7 years ago | (#18007532)

A lot of people are asking why SCO would want to do this or would care. My theory is that SCO hopes to get access to IBM's attorneys' work product.

Normally an attorney's work product (memos, notes, theories, etc created as part of the attorney's work for a client) cannot be discovered by the opposing side. It works like attorney-client privilege.

However, just like the attorney-client privilege, the work product privilege can be waived intentionally or unintentionally if the attorney (or client) shares the information with someone outside the attorney-client relationship. SCO's theory may well be that if an IBM lawyer posts to Groklaw an analysis of the case that amounts to a summary of IBM's theory on the case, then SCO should be allowed access to all of the attorney's related work product. Depending on the judge, SCO may even be granted access to all of the work product of every attorney at that firm assigned to the SCO v. IBM case, although that's pretty unlikely unless the judge has some pet peeve about attorneys commenting to the media/public about ongoing cases.

So, while this may seem like just another last-ditch delay tactic by SCO (and it probably is), there may well be a not-entirely-unreasonable legal basis for it.

(Note: I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.)

Re:Work Product Privilege (3, Funny)

AJWM (19027) | more than 7 years ago | (#18007572)

Interesting assertion, but it's ridiculous to suggest that any IBM lawyer did any such thing. I mean, there's absolutely no evidence that....

Oh, wait, this is SCO we're talking about.

say a word for PJ! (5, Insightful)

jamienk (62492) | more than 7 years ago | (#18007538)

Not only is PJ a real person, but she is one of the few public intellectuals who really inspire with her integrity, honesty, and quirkiness. I swear I almost shed a tear when she resigned from a paying job to quickly dispel the FUD-of-the-week about her. It is amazingly rare to read such a person in todays world on issues of technology, business, and the law.

Quirk: She ardently enforces a policy of no cursing (she gives warning to users who write "BS"). She claims this is to keep discussion respectful.

She stands tall for what she believes is right, whether it relates to the SCO case or not. She has focused on many other issues, including great coverage of the current MS anti-trust case, and the MS/Novel deal, a well as long and recurring essays on ethics.

She graciously defers to people who know more than her on technical issues, and is willing to change her mind.

The underlying themes of her blog (often discussed explicitly) are:

* The US legal system is an attempt to be fair under difficult and complex situations -- it's hard to see this sometimes, but cynicism is an incorrect analysis.

* Business can be good, but business does NOT mean a sacrifice of all values except a quick buck. She is very pro-business.

* A person who stands firm in their knowledge of truth, even as others attack them, has a very difficult road ahead of them; but those who lie, attack, or surrender face harsh spiritual repercussions. In this, as in almost all of her attitude, a Christian sensibility shines through. But rather than being off-putting, dogmatic, or familiar, she comes across as convincing, passionate, and wise.

Thank you PJ! You are a role model for us all!

Re:say a word for PJ! (5, Informative)

arun_s (877518) | more than 7 years ago | (#18007660)

..she is one of the few public intellectuals who really inspire with her integrity, honesty, and quirkiness. I swear I almost shed a tear when she resigned from a paying job to quickly dispel the FUD-of-the-week about her.
I started reading Groklaw late, but I did find about this incident too. The link is here [groklaw.net] .
And here's a memorable quote from that post, where she's explaining her reasons for resigning:
Money is nice, but integrity is everything. --PJ, Groklaw.
Truly an amazing lady.

say the 'G' word for PJ! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18007668)

"* A person who stands firm in their knowledge of truth, even as others attack them, has a very difficult road ahead of them; but those who lie, attack, or surrender face harsh spiritual repercussions. In this, as in almost all of her attitude, a Christian sensibility shines through. But rather than being off-putting, dogmatic, or familiar, she comes across as convincing, passionate, and wise."

Uh, oh! Now you're going to get it. Here, let me hold your hat.

Re:say a word for PJ! (2, Funny)

russryan (981552) | more than 7 years ago | (#18007760)

I'm still waiting for *anyone* to say that they know her personally. As it stands, she exits only by her work.

No PJ? Say it isn't so. (1)

gmac63 (12603) | more than 7 years ago | (#18007562)

SCO's lawyers apparently believe that "Pamela Jones" does not exist and that Groklaw is penned by a team of IBM lawyers.



Sounds a lot like SCO's case so far.

"PJ", very interesting.. (2, Interesting)

Polarism (736984) | more than 7 years ago | (#18007596)

While I have always personally thought Pamela to exist in the flesh, the timing here is rather interesting. Whoever he or she is, they have made great efforts to create as small of a footprint as possible on the internet. I usually pride myself in being able to find information on things that are quite hard to find information about, and i'll tell you what, it wouldn't surprise me if there is no "Pamela Jones".

Hopefully I'm wrong and she exists.

i hope she shows up (1)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 7 years ago | (#18007602)

i want her to shwo up in court so bad haha, "oh so i don't exist do i?" let the circus continue i say.

This Time, It's Personal (4, Insightful)

dcollins (135727) | more than 7 years ago | (#18007700)

FTA: "Jones also has criticized some journalists who cover the lawsuits, including this reporter, accusing them of being biased in favor of SCO."

IBM does not exist either (1)

the_womble (580291) | more than 7 years ago | (#18007726)

IBM does not exist either. It is a front for Karl Marx, who now calls himself Richard Stallman - if you do not believe that, look at beard.

Of course Karl Marx himself is just a front for Pamela Jones.

I thought SCO "outed" her a couple yrs ago (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18007820)

...as a Jehovah's Witness with a reclusive lifestyle. Took pictures and everything.

What happened to that?

Besides, if it were a team of people that would be too good. She writes like a middle aged Scrabble-playing, mystery novel-reading (or writing), global warming-researching type. One person, not many. If IBM had talent like that the Pentagon should hire that group for the propaganda war against Bin Laden.

I can confirm PJ's existence. (5, Interesting)

marklyon (251926) | more than 7 years ago | (#18007830)

I have had direct communication with Pamela regarding PACER - specifically watermarking of documents obtained on PACER.

Her anger with me over my desire to label my documents with my website's URL is not the type of thing that a group of corporate attorneys at IBM would care about.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...