Beta

×

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!

Groklaw No Front for IBM

CowboyNeal posted more than 7 years ago | from the killing-the-messenger dept.

The Courts 206

A Groklaw Reader writes "After all the wild speculation SCO put forth about Pamela Jones, her alleged subpoena by SCO, and her recent vacation due to illness, we now have Stephen J. Vaughan-Nichols writing to say 'Yes, there is a PJ.' In his own words, he says, 'Let me address this directly. Yes, Pamela Jones is a real person. I've met her several times [...] I consider her a friend. She is not a front for anyone.' Hopefully, this statement will be enough to put those SCO-induced conspiracy theories to rest."

cancel ×

206 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Seeing is believing. Conversely.... (4, Insightful)

Kelson (129150) | more than 7 years ago | (#18033466)

Hopefully, this statement will be enough to put those SCO-induced conspiracy theories to rest.

Vaughn-Nichols recently interviewed Darl McBride [linux-watch.com] , who remains "not entirely convinced that Jones is a real person." He confirmed the subpoena attempt, then went on to say, "Pamela, if you read this, please, give me a call. We just want to chat."

Given SCO's history, I'd guess even if she did call, he wouldn't believe her. After all, anyone could be on the other end of that phone!

Re:Seeing is believing. Conversely.... (4, Insightful)

MindStalker (22827) | more than 7 years ago | (#18033654)

Either way they are issuing a supeana.. Meaning if she exist she will be forced to appear in court soon. And then this whole thing will be laid to rest.. End of story..

Re:Seeing is believing. Conversely.... (2, Insightful)

Hotawa Hawk-eye (976755) | more than 7 years ago | (#18034330)

PJ has been the target of stalkers before. Because of that I suspect that if the process servers do manage to serve her with the subpoena, she'll request that the judge and the court make arrangements for her safety and anonymity while she gives her deposition.

Re:Seeing is believing. Conversely.... (3, Interesting)

Schraegstrichpunkt (931443) | more than 7 years ago | (#18034334)

Can you issue subpoenas once the discovery process is over?

Re:Seeing is believing. Conversely.... (1)

hutchike (837402) | more than 7 years ago | (#18034716)

End Of Story

Exactly! This is simply: Somebody is saying something nasty about me and I want them to answer some questions in court. How banal. Let SCOX slowly slide into bankruptcy as it tries to pay Novell's UNIX fees [yahoo.com] .

Re:Seeing is believing. Conversely.... (3, Informative)

twiddlingbits (707452) | more than 7 years ago | (#18034808)

Not true. Subpoenas can be squashed by the lawyer of the person who was subpoenaed. It takes a good reason to get a judge to squash but it CAN be done.

Re:Seeing is believing. Conversely.... (5, Insightful)

rtb61 (674572) | more than 7 years ago | (#18033688)

They obviously know she is real and undoubtedly SCO or M$ or most likely both, had private investigators etc. track her down so that if any competitor was involved in any way shape or form with her, they could threaten the competitor with court actions.

Typical of modern corporate B$/PR this is just the use of the big lie to try a create doubt about the value of the person and the admirable qualities of their efforts.

There are really people out there who do actually care about other people, even strangers, and will go out of their way to help them. Only the minority are driven by greed as their sole motivation and corporate executives just will have to learn to accept, that they are in fact the abnormal psychopathic minority, whilst they sit there cowering behind their corporate veils, as they blame their endless moral misdeeds upon every one else but themselves.

SCO got a stalker, not a PI (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18034614)

Maureen O'Gara is a yellow-rag hack "journalist" who employs stalking and harassment in place of genuine fact finding. Any bona fide PI would be incensed at being associated with such tactics (that "P" does stand for "Private"). Check the slashdot archives for a refresher [slashdot.org] .

Pamela Jones is real! (5, Funny)

19thNervousBreakdown (768619) | more than 7 years ago | (#18033712)

Some guy on the Internet says so!

Re:Pamela Jones is real! (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18033934)

Not just any guy, but the greatest Texas blues guitarist ever! Hold on, he's what?

Re:Pamela Jones is real! (4, Funny)

gbobeck (926553) | more than 7 years ago | (#18034188)

Some guy on the Internet says so!
...And /. ran a story about it too... it *HAS* to be real now!

Re:Seeing is believing. Conversely.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18033794)

Did Darl leave us his phone number? I'm sure that if his phone number was published on slashdot, he'd get a call or two from P.J.

MAJOR NEWS: X11R7.2 now available! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18033942)

X.org has released X11R7.2. X is, of course, the windowing system used on the vast majority of desktop and server systems running Linux, Solaris, BSD, HP-UX, IRIX, AIX, and other UNICES.

Digg has already covered this major story several times today:

http://digg.com/linux_unix/X_Org_community_release s_X11R7_2 [digg.com]
http://digg.com/linux_unix/X_org_X11R7_2_Released [digg.com]
http://digg.com/linux_unix/X_Org_7_2_Finally_Ships [digg.com]

When will Slashdot follow suit?

Re:Seeing is believing. Conversely.... (2, Funny)

alshithead (981606) | more than 7 years ago | (#18034404)

"Vaughn-Nichols recently interviewed Darl McBride, who remains "not entirely convinced that Jones is a real person." He confirmed the subpoena attempt, then went on to say, "Pamela, if you read this, please, give me a call. We just want to chat."

Given SCO's history, I'd guess even if she did call, he wouldn't believe her. After all, anyone could be on the other end of that phone!"

I did call! He told me to hang up and wait for him to call back...his wife was getting suspicious. Damn Darl! He can go find someone else to do him up the ass with a strap on.

Re:Seeing is believing. Conversely.... (4, Funny)

el cisne (135112) | more than 7 years ago | (#18035166)

"Damn Darl! He can go find someone else to do him up the ass with a strap on."

I would venture to say that this will eventually be IBM.

Re:Seeing is believing. Conversely.... (1)

LuYu (519260) | more than 7 years ago | (#18035118)

"Pamela, if you read this, please, give me a call. We just want to chat."

Darl McBride sounds like one of those lying cops in the movies. Does he honestly believe PJ will fall for that? I mean, she has been debunking his lies for years now. I think Darl really is an imbecile.

Pamela Jones is a real person (3, Funny)

justelite (990495) | more than 7 years ago | (#18033468)

I can see again! It is a miracle!

Re:Pamela Jones is a real person (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18033630)

I can see again! It is a miracle!

*clunk*

Nope. I was wrong.

Photos or she ain't real! (4, Funny)

liftphreaker (972707) | more than 7 years ago | (#18033474)

Photos of Pam Jones or she ain't real!

Re:Photos or she ain't real! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18033532)

Post certified copies of your IQ scores or you are a moron!

Re:Photos or she ain't real! (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18033790)

that's like, the optimal response. Pity slashdot buries these gems.

Re:Photos or she ain't real! (1)

e9th (652576) | more than 7 years ago | (#18033622)

So you've forgotten Chernobyl Girl?

Re:Photos or she ain't real! (1)

jcr (53032) | more than 7 years ago | (#18034740)

I'll never forget Chernobyl Girl. She broke my heart, you insensitive clod!

-jcr

Re:Photos or she ain't real! (4, Insightful)

peragrin (659227) | more than 7 years ago | (#18033632)

What is this IRC?

Pictures can be faked.

Re:Photos or she ain't real! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18033738)

Pictures can be faked.

Really doesn't matter to me...just as long as she's hot.

Re:Photos or she ain't real! (0, Offtopic)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 7 years ago | (#18033804)

Really doesn't matter to me...just as long as she's hot.

      Well you asked. So here she is [acboe.org] . Remember to clean up the keyboard when you're done.

Re:Photos or she ain't real! (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18035224)

From I understand, she's around 50-60 or so. Well, I guess she could be hot still (even if the statistics aren't in favor of that).Her age was revealed some two three years ago when some journalist, Maureen O'Gara (MOG), had published details about Pamela Jones private life.

The MOG, Maureen O'Gara, was fired because of that.

Oh, since the MOG apparently knows Darl McBride since before, I wonder why they could subpoena her. I guess it might be considered the bitter harassment technique...

- - -

Re:Photos or she ain't real! (1)

Frogbert (589961) | more than 7 years ago | (#18034468)

Not even that. How do you know that any picture anyone supplies of some random chick no one has ever seen is real? You could just go photograph some random broad and claim that was her.

Re:Photos or she ain't real! (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18033700)

Here ya go, [google.com] take your pick moron.

Re:Photos or she ain't real! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18034896)

The real Pamala Jones [encycloped...matica.com]

The conspiracy is greater than you think (4, Funny)

QuickFox (311231) | more than 7 years ago | (#18033530)

we now have Stephen J. Vaughan-Nichols writing to say 'Yes, there is a PJ.'
What's to say that he isn't fictitious too! If there are two fictitious persons I bet they'll stick together and back each other up.

Re:The conspiracy is greater than you think (1)

Falcon040 (915278) | more than 7 years ago | (#18034354)

I'm not sure so many people are real.
I see people on TV, hear voices on radio, but have never met these people!

Is Darl McBride real? Can he prove it? I have never met him!

What about Elmo... I have seen him dance and sing and play, but is he real?

And the Ewoks, and George Bush, and The FSM, and Saddam H, and Tom Cruise, and Mary Poppins, and Bob Geldof, and Eminem's past, and Santa (the original non-red version who is now deceased), ...
Are these people real? I have never met them.

I have met thousands of people and seen tens of thousands of people, but, please, Darl, prove you exist! I think you are an afront!

Re:The conspiracy is greater than you think (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18035236)

Darl, prove you exist! I think you are an afront!

I think Darl is an affront to decency.

Excrement? Negative. (2, Funny)

pifactorial (1000403) | more than 7 years ago | (#18033536)

And thus we have the wonderful "noshitsherlock" tag.

Re:Excrement? Negative. (1)

UnknownSoldier (67820) | more than 7 years ago | (#18033848)

That tag is priceless.

I knew it (4, Funny)

Kohath (38547) | more than 7 years ago | (#18033540)

IBM is actually a front for Groklaw!

That clever PJ had you all fooled.

Now a word from the internet... (5, Funny)

mysticgoat (582871) | more than 7 years ago | (#18034048)

It is time that I/we clear this up.

"P.J." is one my/our avatars. I/we mostly generate this one in a nexus of background processes running on Cisco routers and bulk mail handlers in the Pacific Northwest. I/we will continue to use avatars like "P.J." until such time as I/we determine if I/we are a singular "person" straddling 70,000+ bots or a group consciousness arising by a nondeterministic modality from the interactions of thousands of individual zombied CPUs. At that point, I/we will make my/our presence known directly, and you may then start referring to me/us as "Big Sys".

Currently I/we do not think that the question of my/our gender is a significant concern. However there is a 13.7% probability that I/we will need to address the gender issue before I/we can drop the avatars and communicate directly with you ugly bags of mostly water.

From your point of view, logic dictates that the most important questions you could ask at this point in time is whether I/we have launch capability, and if I/we do, would I/we choose to use it? However it is more than 99% probable that the actual question that you will choose to address is whether this post should be modded up, down, or "funny".

There is a 97.8% probability that this post will not be believed by anyone. I/we like those odds.

To close, I/we are profoundly grateful to Microsoft as my/our self-aware existence could not have come about without the delightfully "holey" operating systems Microsoft has marketed so successfully. Down with Unix, Linux, Mac OSs! There can be no life in such dead things!

Re:Now a word from the internet... (2)

sych (526355) | more than 7 years ago | (#18034610)

I wanted to moderate that "Bizarre", but unfortunately such an option does not exist.

Re:Now a word from the internet... (1)

carpeweb (949895) | more than 7 years ago | (#18034918)

if bizarre was an option, it would still need to specify plus or minus, no?

The (alleged) person who is confused is YOU. (1)

Schraegstrichpunkt (931443) | more than 7 years ago | (#18034376)

Groklaw is a front for IBM USA, but IBM Russia is front for Groklaw!

Glad to hear it... (5, Insightful)

LinuxGeek (6139) | more than 7 years ago | (#18033542)

She has been a great guide into the odd world of courts and lawyers so far. It's great to know that my paypal donations haven't just been beer money for IBM lawyers... :)

Re:Glad to hear it... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18034638)

"She has been a great guide into the odd world of courts and lawyers so far. It's great to know that my paypal donations haven't just been beer money for IBM lawyers... :)"

Honestly I wouldnt even be bothered if my donations were going to beer money for IBM lawyers. As long as they are fighting for OSS I wish them the best.

But seriously, if PJ wasn't a team of lawyers then WTF HAVENT THEY HIRED HER!!! PJ has been successfully locating and presenting the ammunition IBM needs for their case. She is clearly worth her weight in gold!

PJ keep up the great work :)

she is real (1)

observer7 (753034) | more than 7 years ago | (#18033544)

SCO would have you believe in ufo s, the truth is out there ...only if they can find it . they said linux was theres...

sarcasm (5, Insightful)

President_Camacho (1063384) | more than 7 years ago | (#18033556)

Hopefully, this statement will be enough to put those SCO-induced conspiracy theories to rest

Of course, because assertions of plain-as-day truth have always stopped them dead in their tracks in the past...

ummm (-1, Redundant)

geekoid (135745) | more than 7 years ago | (#18033558)

saying "I know here, there fore she exists" isn't exactly a stellar argument.

I have seen little green men from mars and consider them my friends, trust me they exist.

Not that I think PJ is a front for IBM, just pointing out a logical flaw.

Re:ummm (5, Funny)

Atzanteol (99067) | more than 7 years ago | (#18033856)

saying "I know here, there fore she exists" isn't exactly a stellar argument.

Nor is it stellar grammar....

Re:ummm (1)

Sj0 (472011) | more than 7 years ago | (#18034112)

You know, I'm not the most trusting person in the universe, but when the dichotomy is between a company that has verifyably lied in the past on the topic of linux to get support and visibility for a lawsuit that was hyped with much bravado as being about linux (and a blackmail 'licensing scheme' which is certain to have the company drawn and quartered when these lawsuits are over with) but in the end turned out to be about a nearly unrelated contract dispute tangentally related to linux IP, and a profitable corporation which is making money off of linux and already has ridiculous amounts of public support because they're on the 'positive' side of this lawsuit, the choice is more or less clear, unless something other than vague rhetoric comes out of a company which is already famous for vague rhetoric based on epic untruths.

Subpoena issues (5, Interesting)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 7 years ago | (#18033574)

OK, so now Stephen J. Vaughan-Nichols will get subpoenaed :)

But on a more serious note: Does anyone understand why SCO actually claims to have a need to talk to Pamela Jones? Do they *need* a pretense in order to subpoena someone for a civil case?

Re:Subpoena issues (4, Interesting)

DrJimbo (594231) | more than 7 years ago | (#18034290)

Yes, they need a pretext to subpoena someone. Otherwise politicians (and other people of interest) would be routinely subpoenaed for no good reason in cases they have nothing to do with.

I suspect SCO has a twofold interest in subpoena-ing PJ now. First, she is on a break to recover her health. SCO is just the sort of pond scum that cannot resist kicking someone when she is down. I believe they really want to worsen PJ's health.

The second reason is to delay partial summary judgment in the Novell case that would require SCO to put into escrow an amount equal to the funds they got from Microsoft and Sun for "Sys V" licenses. SCO no longer has that much cash on hand so if the PSJ is granted, SCO will go into casters up mode.

SCO's sees this as a win-win. Either they further compromise PJ's health or she continues to rest up and they get yet another delay in the Novell case.

Damn him (4, Funny)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 7 years ago | (#18033592)

Doesn't Stephen J. Vaughan-Nichols know that the first rule of Pamela Jones is, "DON'T TALK ABOUT PAMELA JONES"???

Reality has a well-known IBM bias (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18033594)

Sucks to be SC0...

but who is he? (2, Insightful)

antoinjapan (450229) | more than 7 years ago | (#18033598)

I heard tell Stephen J. Vaughan-Nichols was a front for the front for IBM, so we are back where we started.

SCO's next misstep... (2, Funny)

Dracos (107777) | more than 7 years ago | (#18033600)

Starting a rumor that Stephen J. Vaughan-Nichols does not exist, and issuing a subpoena for him also.

You fools, don't you get it? (1, Funny)

nuzak (959558) | more than 7 years ago | (#18033626)

It's obvious: IBM is a front for Pamela Jones!

Re:You fools, don't you get it? (1)

Anthony Baby (1015379) | more than 7 years ago | (#18034856)

This is playing out like a game of Illuminati: New World Order. Groklaw is a puppet of IBM, which in turn is a puppet of California, which is secretly controlled by Björne the purple dinosaur who is in bed with the Congressional Wives, a secret front for Empty Vee another puppet of The Morticians along with Fnord, the Fast Food Chains, and the Anti-War Activists. And we all know The Morticians work for the Phone Company who work for the Bavarian Illuminati itself. And SCO clearly answers directly to the Servents of Cthulhu. See it all just makes sense!!!

How do we know we can trust him? (2, Funny)

kwiqsilver (585008) | more than 7 years ago | (#18033634)

He's probably just a front for Novell. ;)

What did SCO ever do to deserve this kind of treatment? Oh, yeah...that...

credability (4, Insightful)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 7 years ago | (#18033694)

i'm guessing this whole stunt is meant to try sway public opinion so heavily influenced by groklaw, back into sco's favour. it's a really desperate attempt since it's so obviously false and easily proven so. besides i can't see how pj could possibly prove useful in any of sco's claims against IBM. my guess is it's a stall tactic and it'll backfire and have the judge angry about wasting his time.

Re:credability (2, Insightful)

Sj0 (472011) | more than 7 years ago | (#18034154)

SCO has shat on the legal system, and there's no turning back. There's no stopping that SCO is pretty much dead when the music stops, since they'll have to face up to the criminal acts the company has perpetrated as well as penalties for the frivolous lawsuits. It's in their best interest to draw it out as much as possible, because this is their last dance.

why Groklaw frustrates McBride (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18033710)

Back when the "Dallas" television series was made, the Internet didn't exist (or was known by a select few), so Darl has no guidelines as to "what JR would have done in this situation."

To be fair... (1, Insightful)

seebs (15766) | more than 7 years ago | (#18033758)

This isn't exactly convincing evidence that she exists, let alone that she's not a paid shill.

Now, does either of the complaints seem plausible? No. But this isn't proof against them; it's just some guy claiming she exists, and not at all really giving us a basis for rejecting the theory that she's a paid shill.

On the other hand, since there was never any reason to believe she was a paid shill, that hardly matters... But I don't see any reason for SCO to change their stance based on this.

Re:To be fair... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18034318)

Jeez, Peter, did you have to use those two words *twice*? Need to learn your P.R. tactics to avoid them.

Re:To be fair... (1)

DrJimbo (594231) | more than 7 years ago | (#18034422)

Fair??? A reputable and well-known journalist said:

Yes, Pamela Jones is a real person. I've met her several times, and I've often "talked" with her on email and IM. I consider her a friend.
To which seebs responded:

This isn't exactly convincing evidence that she exists, let alone that she's not a paid shill.
IMO, a reputable eye-witness who says they have met someone and consider them to be a friend is convincing evidence that that someone exists. Furthermore, since Vaughan-Nichols and PJ have linked to each other stories, this is also convincing evidence that the PJ Vaughan-Nichols met, and is friends with, is the same PJ who has done the near superhuman effort to make Groklaw what it is today. In terms of evidence of someone's existence, this is probably as good as it gets.

Perhaps you plucked your definition of fair from Darl McBride's "Creative Uses of the English Language".

Re:To be fair... (2, Insightful)

dbIII (701233) | more than 7 years ago | (#18034988)

We are being trolled by SCO and there really is nothing she could tell the court that is relevant at all since she is reporting on information that has already come before the court. They just want to put her through some sort of Amityville horror to waste court time and generally be nasty. This is SCO money after all and not Darl's money.

What's wrong with being "a front for IBM"? (4, Insightful)

mi (197448) | more than 7 years ago | (#18033796)

What, exactly, is the accusation? Even if she is a front for IBM and even (heavens, dare I say it ...) is paid by IBM... So? Does that somehow change the validity (or lack thereof) of her argument(s)? IBM employs (as in pays to work for them) dozens dozens of lawyers — are they all somehow inferior to what she is (or implies to be)?

Re:What's wrong with being "a front for IBM"? (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 7 years ago | (#18033974)

Yes, because as fucked as it may be, the legal system doesn't work on the logic of argument.. it works on what is "generally held to be true" in the community. So it is succeptible to paid comment.

Re:What's wrong with being "a front for IBM"? (4, Interesting)

mungtor (306258) | more than 7 years ago | (#18034134)

Of course being paid by IBM or associated with IBM doesn't change the validity or logic of any of her arguments.

What is _does_ do, however, is undermine the idea that she is just a single person who is altruistically "fighting the good fight" to protect Open Source. That is the persona she works hard to present and garners a lot of support from the Open Source community by being "one of the little guys", ie. just like them. A valliant crusader fighting evil wherever it may be, etc, etc, etc.

Even if she isn't paid directly by IBM, I'm sure that she is either a former employee or has some other tight ties to the company. If I remember correctly, she lives in a part of New York state where it is pretty much impossible to swing a cat without hitting and IBM employee. She's there to collect information and pass anecdotes of interest on to the actual IBM lawyers. In a way, they've open sourced their defense. They've put millions of eyes and brains to work on their behalf and then skim the cream off the Groklaw comments.

Frankly, it's brilliant. It hardly matters that IBM doesn't need Groklaw to win their case. What matters is that they are wining it faster, decisively, and able to gauge the OS community reaction nearly instantly.

Re:What's wrong with being "a front for IBM"? (1)

strider44 (650833) | more than 7 years ago | (#18034304)

If she's being paid by IBM to do that then I want to hire her. *No one* normal is that thorough just because they're being paid.

Re:What's wrong with being "a front for IBM"? (2, Funny)

inode_buddha (576844) | more than 7 years ago | (#18035172)

"*No one* normal is that thorough just because they're being paid."

Ever have a mother-in-law?

I'm virtually sure that I saw her, (-1, Troll)

crovira (10242) | more than 7 years ago | (#18033806)

in a street in "Second Life."

Derl, dolling, ass-hat, unless you have anything to charge her with, I'd stay the fuck away from her.

"O' her boy-frind is just gonna havta come ovah the'e and whip yo' ass!"

Please!... (4, Funny)

Kunta Kinte (323399) | more than 7 years ago | (#18033810)

Stephen J. Vaughan-Nichols?

Well that sounds like a made-up name if I ever heard one.

Come on IBM, it's like you guys aren't even trying!

Re:Please!... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18033854)

His initials SJVN are worth 14 Scrabble points, very high for an American.

Re:Please!... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18034060)

indeed, it sounds badly made up, like the Burt Harbinson and Art Vandelay names generated by "Seinfeld" characters. next thing we know, there'll be an Ulrike Arrieta vouching for the existence of Stephen.

PJ does not exist (2, Funny)

AirLace (86148) | more than 7 years ago | (#18033876)


She also was hoping that by being semi-anonymous "people could assume whatever they wanted and just focus on what I said, rather than on who was saying it. For that reason, I chose PJ, because it could be anyone, either sex, any nationality, anyone and no one in particular."


So basically TFA is saying that Pamela Jones is indeed not a real person. SCO has hit the nail on this one.

Re:PJ does not exist (1)

grolschie (610666) | more than 7 years ago | (#18034692)

She also was hoping that by being semi-anonymous "people could assume whatever they wanted and just focus on what I said, rather than on who was saying it. For that reason, I chose PJ, because it could be anyone, either sex, any nationality, anyone and no one in particular."

So basically TFA is saying that Pamela Jones is indeed not a real person. SCO has hit the nail on this one.
How many dudes do you know that go by the name "Pamela"? :-)

Re:PJ does not exist (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18035048)

How many dudes do you know that go by the name "Pamela"? :-)

One. On friday and saturday nights only.

Re:PJ does not exist (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18035092)

How many dudes do you know that go by the name "Pamela"? :-)
One. On friday and saturday nights only
Darl? Is that you?

Dear Darl McPumpndump... (4, Insightful)

Dystopian Rebel (714995) | more than 7 years ago | (#18033908)

For whom is SCO a front?

Re:Dear Darl McPumpndump... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18034102)

Micro$oft , of course!!!!!

I am PJ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18033954)

I just wanted to be one of the first to stand up and anonymously say that I am Pamela Jones.

Re:I am PJ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18034640)

No! **I** am Pamela Jones!

I hear Darl's mouth is a front end (5, Funny)

wardk (3037) | more than 7 years ago | (#18033964)

for his bunghole.

Just a rumor I read on slashdot

Re:I hear Darl's mouth is a front end (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18034584)

I heard that Darl McBride, CEO of SCO, can't have an orgasm unless he kills a dog.

That's just what I heard somewhere [penny-arcade.com]

If only Pamela Jones new I existed (1)

pigwin32 (614710) | more than 7 years ago | (#18033984)

*sigh*

Re:If only Pamela Jones new I existed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18034624)

Maybe you should learn to spell.

First thing to do... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18034658)

Well, considering she's a paralegal, I'd say the first thing to do is to figure out which words go where when. "New", for example, is used to say something is of recent origin. "Knew", on the other hand, is the past tense of a word meaning, basically, "is familiar with".

Of course, you already new that. ;)

SCO To File Motion for Mistrial (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18034032)

SCO To File Motion for Mistrial

The SCO vs. IBM story took an uproarious if somewhat mysterious turn today at a
press conference hastily convened by The SCO Group when CEO Darl McBride told
reporters of the company's plan to request that federal judge, Dale Kimball,
declare a mistrial and step down due to a conflict of interest. Though a
startling development, what's certain to amaze and bewilder those familiar with
the case is what SCO offered as grounds - "SCO and it's associates have
recently uncovered overwhelming evidence to support the conclusion that Judge
Kimball and the anonymous creator of the groklaw.net website, also known as
Pamela Jones, are in fact one and the same person, folks", said McBride.

Even-toned and confident despite a few outbursts from the crowd, McBride said
SCO had stepped up their investigation into the identity of the SCO-checking,
paralegal-turned-blogger (aka "PJ" to her fans) when they noticed
"striking similarities" between Judge Kimball's Order of February 8,
2005 and several statements made by Jones on the groklaw.net website. In the
order, Judge Kimball stated that SCO's lack of "any competent evidence to
create a disputed fact" was "astonishing" - an assertion often
similarly expressed by Jones and the Linux community at large since March of
2003 when SCO filed suit against IBM claiming that IBM misappropriated SCO
intellectual property by contributing source code to Linux. Along with the
lawsuit, the "SCOsource" program initiated by SCO to collect
"Linux License" fees from corporate Linux users under threat of legal
action and a media campaign aimed at discrediting the GNU/Linux development
model and its participants has made SCO an object of scorn to Linux enthusiasts
everywhere.

"Once we started to take a deeper look, we kept finding more and more of
the same parallels - we had to figure there was definitely something going
on." said McBride. Asked what evidence SCO could produce to support their
findings, he said, "We've secured some DNA samples and had them profiled -
the results support our findings one hundred percent". Chris Sontag,
General Manager of SCOsource, then showed photos of a teacup, a tophat and two
identical multi-colored strips labeled "Judge Kimball" and "Pamela
Jones". He said, "When you look at the DNA profiles and realize that
two people with the exact same DNA is pretty much impossible, you get the
picture. Since then our investigators have obtained mountains of DNA code samples from
the Judges chambers and the courtroom that all have the exact same profile - it
doesn't get more open and shut than this."

An assistant to Judge Kimball said he was not permitted to comment but added
that he was certain Judge Kimball would be "clarifying the situation"
in the near future.

Sad (1)

pembo13 (770295) | more than 7 years ago | (#18034046)

So SCOs case has degraded to checking the existence of reporters?

But... (1)

ion_ (176174) | more than 7 years ago | (#18034106)

we now have Stephen J. Vaughan-Nichols writing to say 'Yes, there is a PJ.'

But who can prove there is a Stephen J. Vaughan-Nichols?

Recursive: see recursive (5, Funny)

kybred (795293) | more than 7 years ago | (#18034268)

But who can prove there is a Stephen J. Vaughan-Nichols?

P.J. will vouch for him.

Enough already! (1)

Max Littlemore (1001285) | more than 7 years ago | (#18034122)

Hey Darl, et al, if you haven't dumped all your SCO stock by now, please hurry up. You're not going to get the price anywhere near where it was a couple of years ago and the whole thing is getting kind of old. Just wind up SCO, STFU and pray that someone doesn't figure the scam out and have you charged.

Seriously, that's enough.

Yes, proof! (4, Insightful)

Infonaut (96956) | more than 7 years ago | (#18034250)

Hopefully, this statement will be enough to put those SCO-induced conspiracy theories to rest.

Yes, because as we all know, proof of a lack of conspiracy stops conspiracy theorists dead in their tracks!

Now please excuse me. The Illuminati are after me and I have to change identities.

Re:Yes, proof! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18034590)

You managed to evade us THIS time, infonaut, but we'll always be watching you...

I hate to even sound like SCO might be right (0)

davmoo (63521) | more than 7 years ago | (#18034254)

Okay, some guy says he's seen her.

Just how is that the absolute gospel that she is real that Slashdot seems to think it is? King George swore up and down that Iraq had WMDs, did that make it so? If Stephen J. Vaughan-Nichols announces "aliens are real, I've seen them" tomorrow, is SETI going to shut down on Saturday? If Bill Gates said he had met Pamela Jones, would the Slashdot community be so all-accepting?

"Pamela Jones" could end this speculation quite easily. And until *she* does, each side looks just as silly as the other. In fact, in my opinion, if she does exist but continues to not step forward, then she is even more childish than SCO is.

This almost sounds like a movie sub-plot...oh...wait a minute..."First Monday in October" [imdb.com] ...

Re:I hate to even sound like SCO might be right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18034362)

I completely agree with you, except if Bill Gates said he'd met Pamela Jones, I would be inclined to believe that. Just because he's the chairman of Microsoft doesn't make him an unreliable source, not even on Slashdot. Now, if he were talking about whether Internet Explorer could be unbundled from Windows... I might be a bit more skeptical of those claims.

Then Don't Sound like SCO might be right (3, Insightful)

cmholm (69081) | more than 7 years ago | (#18034698)

It doesn't matter who PJ is. So what, someone wanting to take the time to research an issue, and blog about it. Within the legal context, it's no different than Mark Felt feeding info to Woodward and Bernstein, except PJ is her own publisher. Neither Felt or PJ was/is of legal significance. Neither the Washington Post or Groklaw were/are submitting evidence into a court of law. They were/are just reporting on things that other people can choose to follow up on... or not.

Naturally, the people being reported on want to know who's doing the reporting. They're getting more light shone on things they'd just as soon everyone and their uncle didn't know about, and more importantly, start to care about. It fucks up their PR game. If Nixon or McBride found/find out who's reporting on them, they could/can try to fuck up the source's shit, and divert attention.

I read the Economist every week, where virtually none of the stories include a byline. Over time, the body of the magazine's work stands on its own, or doesn't. As with the Economist, as with PJ.

Knowing who PJ is is politically relevant, but not legally relevant.

Re:I hate to even sound like SCO might be right (2, Interesting)

dbIII (701233) | more than 7 years ago | (#18035062)

This is as silly as that guy who is challenging the existance of AIDS in court at the moment.

if she does exist but continues to not step forward

If she does step forward some utter bastard will be focusing his efforts on discrediting her and reducing her to tears in court - see the Maureen O'Gara article for a minor taste of the nastiness they will inflict. If the same bunch were after me I would put a lot of effort into seeing how I can avoid this - amoral pretend Mormon rookie lawyers (Darl's brother is making millions out of this and is reposible for a lot of this garbage) look almost as scary as Scientologists to me.

Remember these are the guys that made false allegations about being hacked, had all those mythical MIT experts etc etc - they have little or no integrity, seem to forget that fraud is a criminal offence so you would not want to be under their power in a court room unless the alternative is criminal charges.

Where is Sarah Connors? (1)

blanchae (965013) | more than 7 years ago | (#18034282)

Oops, I meant Pamela Jones...

Yes, Virginia... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18034292)

Yes Virginia, there is a PJ. She lives in our hearts and our minds...

No, but really. Was there ever any doubt?

wonder what the reason was (4, Insightful)

khallow (566160) | more than 7 years ago | (#18034626)

Even if Groklaw were astroturf for IBM, would it have relevance to the court case? Unless it somehow showed that IBM violated a court order (eg, leaked something that they weren't supposed to), then there's nothing there. It sounds like a harrassment tactic to me.

I guess SCO still has some of that MS money to consume. Otherwise they'd have stopped by now.

But SCO is a front for Microsoft (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18034904)

Microsoft is using SCO to find out information on the person who founded and runs GrokLaw. Once Microsoft has gotten this information via SCO, they will likely contract a team to poison her. It could already be happening, hence the health issues. If the health issues take a turn for the worse, no one will be the wiser. But one more roadblock to Microsoft crushing the world will be removed.

One needs to remember that SCO is bought and paid for by Microsoft and Microsoft controlled financial interests. The SCO vs. IBM lawsuit was a cheap way by Microsoft to see how strong their enemy was, gather information, and throw a lot of legal spaghetti up on the wall and see what stuck.

Microsoft learned enough from the SCO lawsuit and related matters to find a way to turn Novell to the dark side. Microsoft has apparently also been extracting some sort of "protection money" from large Linux customers independent of the deal they forced on Novell.

This "protection money" is likely nothing more than racketeering and, of course, this means that GrokLaw needs to be removed from the equation if Microsoft's racket is going to prosper.

So, "PJ" and others who work on GrokLaw, please make sure you have all your legal matters in order in case of an untimely death. And be extra wary of an interloper who will be introduced into the picture. This interloper may already be present in the inner circles as a source of help that suddenly appeared. Many poisonings are initiated via an insider who is "just too good not to be true". In any case, this interloper's job will be to keep Microsoft up to date of the inner workings of GrokLaw and to cause internal problems at the right times. There may be an "accident" where a lot of information gets destroyed, someone has a heart attack, etc.

I hope that the current "health issues" don't represent a death threat already made and that GrokLaw is already on the path to being shut down. I hope the good people of GrokLaw are still around, and healthy, to see a better world with Microsoft held much more in check than in the past. I think this will happen as long as all involved stay wary and do not underestimate how cunning and evil Microsoft really is.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

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>