once again, an absence of penalties

By Carla Schroder

April 05 2007

It appears that the only punishment SCO will suffer for
all their shenanigans, harassments, lies, and abuse of the
courts is their suit against IBM is going to, someday,
perhaps by the year Y3K, run out of gas and not make it to
trial.

Hurrah. :P

03:05 PM EDT

My Very Own Motion, Tra La - as text

By Anonymous

April 05 2007

Maybe someday the truth will come out and everyone will see the darkness behind
PJ. Even if it doesn't...we'll always know won't we? Sleep well.

04:47 PM EDT

My Very Own Motion, Tra La - as text

By PJ

April 05 2007

So tell me. Has McCann Erickson been hired to do an anti-PJ campaign and if so by Microsoft? Or are you just having some fun threatening me as an individual employee?

07:46 PM EDT

My Very Own Motion, Tra La - as text

By Anonymous

April 06 2007

PJ,

Do us researchers with some free time a favor. Find all the "planted"
anonymous posts from this article and the previous that attempted to sow FUD, in
case the court reads Groklaw, and post their origin IP as traced by the
webserver logs. I bet most if not all are traceable to either SCO or BSF
directly. It's rare that you run into someone smart enough to think make their
IP untraceable when they troll, and I can't attribute those kind of brains to
either SCO or BSF.

Now THAT would be something interesting for the Judge to see!

Second, as others have stated I don't know why Kimball or Wells would allow it
to be admitted to the IBM case based on evidence above. And a simple filing in
the Novel case should easily take care of the deposition as it's entirely based
on hearsay based on SCO's own statements, and improperly filed with NO evidence
of actual attempted subpoena, not to mention that they are seeking info from a
third party that can easily be obtained from a party to the suit.

PJ, you should consider a SLAPP suit against BSF and SCO, the deposition is
clearly an attempt to limit your public discussion and reporting (you are
clearly a journalist in this case, although not entirely objective, but
objective journalists in 2007 are rarer than unicorns) by exposing you directly
to the death threats you have recieved by removing some of your anonymity. I'm
not sure if NY has a SLAPP law, but I will say that I'm certain California has a
SLAPP law and IBiblio's servers are in California if you wanted to file there
you probably could make it stick. As I'm sure you already know the SLAPP laws
usually cover exactly this kind of legal threat and intimidation to prevent
public participation. Statutory penalties, depending on the law, can be quite
severe and some states allow treble automatically on any judgement.

Heck, if possible I would ask the Novell and IBM judges (I'm aware they are the
same judge) to sanction BSF for the poorness of the filing and that they lied
and showed that lie in the filling in later comments.

01:03 AM EDT

Evidence.

By Ian Al

April 06 2007

Indeed, Wall Street Journal reporter Dan Lyons recently reported that, according to his sources, OSDL paid "$40,000 to $50,000" to Groklaw between late 2005 and early 2006. In response to an inquiry from Mr. Lyons regarding the foregoing issues, IBM did not deny its knowledge of such payments, or of OSDL's intent to use monies received from IBM towards supporting Groklaw; nor did IBM deny that it knew the payments would in fact be made to Groklaw, nor that IBM expected such payments to support the consistent and strident anti-SCO message that Groklaw was communicating to the world. Instead, IBM said only: "IBM does not have any agreements or arrangements with Groklaw or Pamela Jones. IBM, like many other companies, has provided funding to OSDL in the past, and you would have to contact them about how that funding was disbursed." (Id.) Given that Mr. Mauri of IBM was the Chairman of the OSDL during the relevant time frame, IBM's statement rings hollow, to say the least.

In addition, Novell has had a representative on the OSDL/The Linux Group Board of Directors since 2003. Former Novell executive Chris Stone, who worked with the OSDL for Novell in 2003 and 2004, admits in Mr. Lyons's piece that "paying money to Groklaw 'would not have been a good thing for OSDL. OSDL was meant to be above the fray, not investing in groups or web sites.'"

In addition to funneling money to Groklaw through the OSDL, moreover, IBM contributes to the site's internet host.

Where is the deposition of Mr. Mauri of IBM where they establish that he directed or condoned the payment by OSDL of '"$40,000 to $50,000" to Groklaw between late 2005 and early 2006'? If OSDL had funnelled money to Groklaw (for which the only evidence is the anonymous SCOG source of Dan Lions [sorry, not SCOG. Scrivener's error. Or is it?]) how do we know that it was IBM that instigated it?

The only thing in this part of the motion which states that IBM funded Groklaw or Pamela Jones is the lie at the end.

These people are not just full of it. They are fit to burst and this document is the evidence of with what they are bursting.

Still, not to get furious. But, I just can't help myself.

---
Regards
Ian Al

05:18 AM EDT

Evidence.

By Anonymous

April 06 2007

I'm still waiting for PJ to deny that Groklaw received $50,000 from OSDL.

05:31 AM EDT

Publishing IP Addresses -- Not A Good Idea

By Steve Martin

April 06 2007

Not to sound like a troll (I hope I won't be confused for one after all this time), but I think that would not be a good idea at all. Posting anonymous posters' IP addresses, while it would give some of the irritated Groklaw faithful (including, admittedly, myself) some gratification, would also violate the anonymous posters' right to privacy. We simply cannot stand up and defend PJ's right to privacy while trampling on that of those who oppose her.

Also, in some countries there is a statutory right to not have such information obtained and released, and it might get PJ in legal trouble (I'm sure she knows more about that than I do). For example, in Sweden, the Swedish Data Inspection Board has said [ http://constitutionalcode.blogspot.com/2005/06/sweden-anti-piracy-group-broke-data.html ] that "if an IP address can be linked to an individual user it is should be classed as personal information and thus be covered by the personal data act."

So while PJ is (as far as I know, IANAL) within her rights to record IP addresses for security reasons (and IMHO would be remiss if she did not), she is probably not free to share that information indiscriminately.

---
"When I say something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffee, "Sports Night"

08:06 AM EDT

No need as NOT RELEVANT

By Anonymous

April 06 2007

The dichotomy isn't between what is true and what is false, but between what is
relevant and what is irrelevant.

May I suggest that PJ has no need to reply because the question is not
relevant.

PJ is not a party to this case, and neither is OSDL.

Sesostris III

08:19 AM EDT

PJ, would you accept the service?

By Anonymous

April 06 2007

PJ,

Just out of curiosity, if SCO emailed you to ask how they could get in contact
with you to serve you with the subpheona, would you respond and then accept
service?

09:06 AM EDT

hiding via health break...

By Anonymous

April 06 2007

That PJ announced a health break and took some time off is considered proof that
she was evading being served...

It's the *internet* SCO.. once could log in from *anywhere* and do maintain a
website. She could even do it with one of those wireless broadband cards from
your own parking lot. So.. how is taking time off proof of evasion? Even if
she were actually trying to evade being deposed... she could maintain Groklaw
while doing one of those high speed chases like in the Bourne Supremecy...
(admittedly she might get car sick and spew out the window on occasion)

09:43 AM EDT

Evidence.

By Anonymous

April 06 2007

And so what? What would it mean if Groklaw accepted $50K from anyone?

If PJ said $50K came from OSDL, would you then think she is a fraud? Would this
prove IBM funneled money to GL? Would this mean a hill of beans to anyone?

Grow up, get a life, and stop trying to back people into corners.....

09:50 AM EDT

Publishing IP Addresses -- Not A Good Idea

By PJ

April 06 2007

Yes, that isn't something I would do. In my dreams...
it's tempting. But in real life, no. I'd tell the police
about threats though. There was one veiled threat
yesterday and it's going to the police.

10:22 AM EDT

PJ, would you accept the service?

By Bill The Cat

April 06 2007

I seriously doubt if PJ would do this after all the work she has gone to in
protecting herself. She has never once wanted to be in the spotlight and has
repeatedly stated as much. So, why would she even consider giving up her
identity, address and contact information (her legal rights by the way) if she
doesn't have to?

I know that I certainly would NOT give BSF, SCO or any of their unethical clowns
any of my information.

---
Bill The Cat

10:53 AM EDT

Evidence.

By PJ

April 06 2007

You know, that is the odd thing to me also. OSDL
paid Linus a salary. Is he a front for IBM? Linux
Foundation still pays him. The point is so he can
be paid by a nonprofit that is not a vendor, so he
can be free of vendor influence.

Don't let SCO make you internalize their thinking.
OSDL was not a front for IBM. Neither is the Linux
Foundation. That is SCO smear, and it's not true.

There would be nothing wrong with OSDL donating to
Groklaw, and frankly if Linux Foundation were to
offer me a contribution, I'd gladly accept it, not
that they have.

It's how Groklaw exists, contributions. The only issue would be if there were
any strings attached or if IBM were secretly the sole funder or even the main
one or something like that or if there was editorial content being suggested
or provided or even a point of view. But there has
never been anything like that. Never. And SCO pretends
it doesn't matter, but if Groklaw started in May of 2003
and someone contributed in late 2005, as they claim,
would that indicate Groklaw was set up as a front or
rather that someone saw what Groklaw was doing and
thought it was great?

My editorial position surely never wavered. In fact,
since the silly allegation is that Novell also controls
Groklaw via funding, how would you explain my "Novell
Sells Out" articles? It's nonsense, really. Lyons
has now written that Novell is deliberately feeding
me to the lions, so how does that square with the
accusation that I am a front for Novell? They aren't
even consistent in their smears.

And by the way, Lyons is wrong (again). Groklaw
did put the Amazon litigation in News Picks. It's a
patent case, and I never cover them unless they have
to do with Linux or FOSS, but it was put there, and
I did comment about it. He just likes to find fault.

You know what else makes me laugh? The idea that
getting a public document means collusion. Lyons and
MOG both got insider info and documents, and so did
all the other tech journalists, yet they make that
ridiculous claim. There have been over a thousand
docket entries in the IBM case so far. If I got
two, and one of them I notice I didn't get first -- SCO's
own exhibit shows I saw News.com had it first and
I wrote that I'd try to get it too, so obviously
another journalist was given the filing and I wasn't,
so much for favoritism -- what would that show?

It would show that I wasn't top of their list, for
starters in that they would send to other journos
and forget me. That is true, by the way. I complained to IBM repeatedly about
it, to their PR guy.

So what I'm saying is: don't let SCOthink enter your
brain. It's all nonsense. And further, their lawyers
have to know it is legally nonsense. Their whole
game from day one is to say evil things in the media
that they then can't substantiate.

Here's the serious part. They are attacking my First
Amendment right to say what I truly think. They set up
a false standard (nonbias) and then they claim I
am biased. Look at what Dan Lyons is writing. Look at
what MOG wrote. Enderle. Darrow. Paul McDougal. Do you
see any bias? of course. And not just on Lyons' blog.
He's famous for bias in his Forbes articles too. Everyone knows he hates IBM
and he hates me and the Free Software
Foundation, and it shines through
in everything he writes. When is he ever fair?

So again, don't let SCOthink get to you. It isn't
getting to me. I am an American citizen. I was born
here. That gives me certain rights that I was born
with. One of them is that I can express myself freely
without fear. Thailand is where they put you in
jail for publishing something, but here I can say
that SCO has no case if that is what I see, and if
I have facts to present, that isn't bias. It's called
truth. And frankly the courts seem
to be agreeing, so far, that I called it right.

I also have certain rights as a journalist. And I
intend to continue to exercise them.

10:59 AM EDT

PJ, would you accept the service?

By PJ

April 06 2007

Wait. Of course I would accept service, and I
would respond according to the law, which obviously
presents me with various options in terms of
response. But I would never refuse service.

One of my goals in doing Groklaw is to show you
what I love about the legal system, not that
SCO hijinks haven't tarnished my view some. But
I respect the legal system and I know it only
works if everyone plays by the rules. That is
actually the problem we've been observing --
SCO doesn't.

But I do, and I will. If they serve me, I'll
respond appropriately.

11:05 AM EDT

No need as NOT RELEVANT

By PJ

April 06 2007

I have a problem with talking about who does and who
doesn't contribute to Groklaw. Will people stop
contributing if they see their names plastered about?
Will they feel violated as to their privacy?
A lot of people contribute to Groklaw, mostly
individuals. And I never reveal who they are, and
I don't think I have to.

If in court I ever have to, then I will discuss it.
But folks, there would be nothing wrong with the OSDL
Legal Defense Fund contributing to Groklaw. That is
a separate fund from OSDL, and its purpose was very
specific: to help protect end users from SCO litigation.

That isn't the same as the goal for OSDL itself, nor
was it funded by the same entities. Anyone in the world
could contribute to the Legal Defense Fund, not just
the entities that made up OSDL. Check it out and you
will see that this is true. So this is a red herring,
for sure.

11:21 AM EDT

hiding via health break...

By PJ

April 06 2007

nah. It would be writing Groklaw in their
parking lot that might have me throwing up
in my mouth.

: )

Actually, if I were anywhere near Utah, that
idea appeals enormously. Not that I'd really
use their wireless without permission, but
in my dreams, it's a fun tableau. I see
myself tap tap tapping away...

11:33 AM EDT

Apropos PJ, objectivity, etc etc.

By blang

April 06 2007

I keep seeing lots of people trying to use groklaw to their own ends. It means
something different to everyone. But first adn foremost, I'd like to address
Lyons, SCO, MOG and many other's cricisism of groklaw (and PJ).

1. Ultimately, while groklaw invites everyone (within reason) to participate,
the site is still PJ's brainchild.
2. PJ does not owe it to anyone to not have a bias.
3. While I agree that groklaw shows some bias against SCO (who would not I
ask?), groklaw is much more fair than one would expect.
4. We have seen much more dishonest reporting from some of the brick and mortar
press than we have seen from groklaw.
5. There is no law against bias.
6. If PJ had wanted to, she could have been 10 times more biased. There are
people who think she is not biased enough.
7. While groklaw aspire to very high standards in terms of first amendment,
fairness, etc., it is not an absolutist site.
8. Sometimens groklaw comes a bit short in terms of "do as I say, not as I
do". I think that's called being human.
9. Sometimes groklaw falls short of it's own high standards.
10. Still, after all these warts, groklaw is the most complete coverage of any
litigation that I have ever seen or heard about.

Finally:
11. Groklaw has provided more meat on the bone in terms of reporting on a
lawsuit over these 4 years than all the network and cable TV channels have put
together in all other litigation over the last decade. I think we have learned
much more from PJ than we have from 100's of highly paid talking heads (such as
Boies) who get on the news shows to comment on current events. Some channels
use panels espousing opposing views (balance), but get no closer to teh truth
that way. Even the reporting on high profile cases like the OJ Simpson case,
Iran Contras, Scooter Libby, Scott Peterson case, Enron, and on and on look
like 24/7 amateur hour when compared to groklaw's reporting. It's been more than
3000 high quality articles, several awards. Something new and big. One must
almost pity SCO for such terrible timing.

02:58 PM EDT

Apropos PJ, objectivity, etc etc.

By AcousticZen

April 06 2007

Your points are taken. The main thing to remember is Groklaw is a BLOG. Blogs
are specifically set up to voice one person's opinion. Groklaw is not a
journalistic outlet (although many people, including myself, us it in that
fashion).

PJ can voice whatever opinion she wishes to on her blog. It is a constitutional
right.

AZ

07:33 PM EDT

Apropos PJ, objectivity, etc etc.

By PJ

April 09 2007

Well, it's both. I could say I am a journalist
elsewhere and blogging here. But the truth is
while Groklaw started as a blog, I don't think
it is now, although it still has the blog
aspect. It's also a journalistic source of
news, because we do break stories ourselves
here and search out and report on the news
we cover.

So Groklaw is what it is, and that is only two
of the things it is. If you read the Mission
Statement you'll find in Groklaw Info, you'll
find the rest.

07:33 PM EDT

Apropos PJ, objectivity, etc etc.

By PJ

April 09 2007

If bias was against the law, Dan Lyons and MOG
would be in jail.

Yet they are "journalists". Of a kind.

They never ever say a good word about IBM or Groklaw. Ever.

Groklaw on the other hand is not biased, because we started
with a hope and one certainty that SCO was wrong, and over
time we proved it wrong on everything. For us not to know at this point who
ought to win would require true bias. It's pretty obvious at this point, I
think, to any reasonable close observe.

Don't let SCO FUD get inside your brain. Groklaw is fair,
not biased. They just say that over and over and over
and get it into the media to throw us off and to smear
our good reputation.

It

08:06 PM EDT

Copyright 2007 http://www.groklaw.net/