Slashdot Log In
SCO Legally Assaults PJ of Groklaw
Posted by
Zonk
on Thu Apr 05, 2007 08:14 AM
from the when-will-it-end dept.
from the when-will-it-end dept.
Litigious Bastards writes "SCO has just filed court papers saying that they were unable to subpoena PJ of Groklaw. While they apparently sent their crack team of process servers out looking for random people named Pamela Jones, it would appear that they were unable to locate the bright yellow envelope labeled 'Email PJ' on the Groklaw website to ask for directions to serve her in person. They're once again accusing her of working for IBM or Novell, and Groklaw is now hosting over 20 documents PJ claims were planted in the media in an effort to discredit her. As she says, 'And so the stupidest lawsuit in the history of the world just got stupider. And a whole lot meaner.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Legally assaults? (Score:5, Funny)
SCNR
Re:Legally assaults? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Legally assaults? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
I've heard... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I've heard... (Score:5, Funny)
that's funny... I thought they were trying to avoid him
Parent
Re:I've heard... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:I've heard... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:I've heard... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
SCO still exists? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:SCO still exists? Simple (Score:5, Interesting)
Micro$oft has both purchased a very large license for undisclosed Unix IP (can't they get anything that they need from BSD?) and has been implicated at least a little bit in under-the-table assurances to places like Baystar that their "investment" in SCO will be covered when it is lost.
It has probably been worth a great deal to spread IP FUD about Linux until Vista gets up and going. Do you think that they have gotten their money's worth in funding TSCOG's long slow suicide?
Parent
Funded by Microsoft (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:SCO still exists? (Score:5, Informative)
It's shed light on the ridiculousness of software patents
On the contrary, it's shown that the system, slow as it is, at least works reasonably. They abandoned the lame-o patent claims long ago when it became clear they weren't winning them. Not to mention which, no software patents were never declared invalid in this case; rather, it simply became clear that SCO's interpretation of the licenses was retarded. In that sense, the patent claims were a matter of contract law, which was what was in fact disputed. Since then, this has become purlely a copyright case, and they're obviously losing that too.
and brought clarity to copyright law.
I don't know what's been clarified, other than the fact that there isn't any SCO-owned code in Linux save what they put there and has since been removed. Copyright law has always been clear with regard to this case: don't copy what isn't yours. Problem is (for SCO), IBM didn't.
Additionally it's shown that there are companies who are willing to stand up for Free Software, even at great expense.
I'd be wary - IBM is standing up for themselves. When they start filing amicus briefs in cases they're not involved in, that don't impact them directly, then I'll agree with that. Are they?
Parent
Re:SCO still exists? (Score:5, Interesting)
This lawsuit changed all of that, and has shown that the GPL is far stronger than ever... especially GPL v 2.0 (the 3.0 debate will open this FUD up all over again, but at least the principles have already been tested).
Now when somebody tries to sue based on the "unconstitutionality" of the GPL or comes up with all other kinds of crazy ideas that the GPL is legal BS, you can simply show them SCO and a graph of their stock price after they filed their lawsuit, and mention that SCO is one of the most heavily shorted stocks ever in the history of NASDAQ. The only reason their price goes up at all is because people are trying to "cover" their short sell, which requires actual purchase of shares.
Send such a graph to major investors of a company suing based on the GPL, and I'm sure they will stand up and take notice. The only possible reason to keep something like that going is if (like SCO) the investors are from other companies who don't care if the "investment" goes straight into the toilet and have other political goals in mind.
The last word about the SCO lawsuit has yet to be written, and this is going to be very interesting where it will go once SCOX is delisted and the SEC gets into the mess. I'm sure they will at some point.
Parent
Is there something we can do to help? (Score:5, Funny)
Nah, I'll just call my Cousin Vinnie.
Baseball bat and umm...
You named SCO? I heard you're giving a friend of mine, PJ, some problems. Let's talk.
But Darl's got a gun. (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:But Darl's got a gun. (Score:5, Funny)
(and to the mod trolls, no it's not off-topic, reread the parent).
Parent
Re:Is there something we can do to help? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
why would she work for IBM... she works for me :) (Score:5, Interesting)
Stupidest lawsuit in history? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Stupidest lawsuit in history? (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe you could find a suit based on a stupider premise, but I don't think anyone can beat SCO for the sheer scale of their stupidity.
Parent
IANAL, but surely.... (Score:5, Insightful)
2. Is it a particularly good idea to email an address on a website which may or may not go to the correct person asking "Hey, where do you live, we want to serve legal documents on you"?
Re:IANAL, but surely.... (Score:5, Informative)
Well, this is for the New York City Civil Court [smallbusinessrescue.com] (your mileage may vary), but it would seem that it is up to the server to find the person to be served. I really don't think they can legislate that the person being served make themselves more available, sonce there's no real way to know who will receive a subpoena ahead of time.
Parent
Re:IANAL, but surely.... (Score:5, Interesting)
IANAL (I do have most of a Paralegal degree, sans only Ethics.)
I am not aware of any statute that requires you to actively seek out a subpoena. However, if you do successfully avoid a subpoena, you'll just wind up with a court summons, or a warrant. Generally, if someone's subpoenaing you it's in your best interest to read that subpoena ASAP, get yourself a lawyer, and talk to the judge. Don't avoid judges; they don't like that, and you don't want to be in the court of a judge who has reason to dislike you.
Parent
Re:IANAL, but surely.... (Score:5, Funny)
IANAL (I do have most of a Paralegal degree, sans only Ethics.)
I gather that the difference between a Paralegal degree and a Lawyer one is that there isn't an Ethics course in the latter.
Parent
Re:IANAL, but surely.... (Score:5, Informative)
The first assumption here is that SCO has honestly tried to serve PJ with a competent subpoena. From what I remember about SCO and subpoenas, they have consistently delivered them to the wrong address (Chrysler), to the wrong people (Intel), had technical defects (Intel, Oracle), had procedural defects (Oracle, Intel, the Open Group), and with inadequate notice (Intel, Oracle, the Open Group).
When the subpoenaed Chrysler, they sent it Chrysler's old corporate HQ which they moved out of years earlier. SCO sent a subpoena to Intel's legal department even though Intel had told them that they retained outside counsel for these matters, and SCO had worked with that outside counsel 45 days earlier. They send Oracle and Intel subpoenas for depositions without listing what topics to depose and wanted to take the depositions (in NY) 2000 miles from Intel's HQ (in CA). In CA where the OpenGroup, Oracle, and Intel are located, you are not allowed to drop a subpoena demanding a deposition and expect to be followed. According to rules, there must be a meet and confer with the other party (especially if they are third party to a lawsuit) to arrange these matters. When some of the procedural and technical defects were finally resolved, all three were given less than 24 notice to appear to testify about a broad number of subjects. Intel specifically objected noting that the depostion would require the appearance of 6-8 people and about a month of preparation to gather all the required documents.
With SCO it has always been about tricks and delay.
Parent
More Trouble (Score:5, Interesting)
Fairly transparent what their strategy will be (Score:5, Interesting)
Clearly Groklaw is the biggest of the many sites that go over the minutae of the various SCO lawsuits, so they are probably quite correct in their assertion that it's materially impacting their business - and proves that you do indeed reap what you sow. So, SCO drags PJ into the lawsuit, probably knowing full well that it's almost certainly not going to get them anywhere legally, but that it will buy them yet more delays, something they really seem to like. IANAL, but from what I understand of US law free speech does not extend to those involved in a legal case being able to comment on that case, and that surely has to be the real goal here. By getting PJ involved in the case and getting really, *really* lucky, they might be able to effectively gag Groklaw, or at least limit what they can and cannot post.
Personally, I think getting someone with a detailed knowledge of the case, a legal background, additional protections through being a journalist and despises you and your company onto the witness stand is not a smart move, but then I think SCO & BSF have already proven beyond reasonable doubt that they are not smart. Desperate maybe, but not smart.
Re:Fairly transparent what their strategy will be (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course there is explicit legislation that is designed to stop this sort of behavior by "activist groups" and others who are clearly on a political campaign and have previously been exercising their 1st amendment rights prior to a lawsuit that attempts to shut them up: http://www.thefirstamendment.org/antislappresourc
While SCO here is screwed financially as it is, normally this is something that is dangerous as the group (like PJ from Groklaw) which is sued, as long as they are on the safe side of libel laws, can counter sue for incredible amounts of money. In the arena of public opinion, it is also a P.R. nightmare to lose a SLAPP suit, not to mention it may have serious negative consequences if you are involved with other legal matters.
Parent
Re:Fairly transparent what their strategy will be (Score:5, Informative)
Why avoid it?
Those are the 3 that come to mind in the first 10 seconds of thinking about it.
Given the way SCO has treated it's previous deposees, I wouldn't do a thing to make their lifes any easier to find me. I don't need any more abuse in my life. If they can follow the rules & find me - so be it, if I can't quash the supeona, I'll show up. Until they follow all the rules - something they seem to be unable to do- I'm sitting on my butt laughing at them.
Parent
Re:Fairly transparent what their strategy will be (Score:5, Informative)
Note that receiving funds 2nd had through a foundation that is supported - in part - by IBM doesn't make her a party.
I think that any one of those might cause a gag order.
As for interfiering with their business, commenting on a legal case in progress isn't illegal. Stating your opinion isn't illegal. Telling people to stay away from a company because they are crazy enough to sue their customers might be tortuous interfierance, if it wasn't provable that they are in fact suing their customers. So that's not going to initiate a gag order.
Skipping to disseminating information not publicly available, Groklaw has on occasion posted things that were supposed to be filed under seal. The reason that was done is that the documents themselves were misfiled. PJ has deliberatly removed those documents from the archive each time this has occured. Other than that, I don't recall seeing anything that was presented that isn't part of the public record - IE, you can go down to the courthouse and pick up every document listed on Groklaw that originates in this case. Secondary comments & supporting documents or documents brought in from other locations to refute SCO or bolster IBM & Novell have likewise been available for public consumption - published works, web pages available from the internet, etc.
The only real hope SCO would have to get PJ silenced as a party to the lawsuit would be to prove she is an employee of IBM. Even then, they would have to show a reason to gag her when she's only commenting on publicly available documentation. They would also have to show how her discussions are any more biased than the SCOinfo.com site SCO itself maintains.
Parent
Re:Fairly transparent what their strategy will be (Score:5, Interesting)
Can you support that, in any shape way or form? I've seen her deny working for IBM, quite unambiguously too. On the other hand the only thing resembling support for the proposition that she works for IBM is that she hosts Groklaw in ibiblio, to which IBM have occasionally contributed money.
I'm with you as far as the "SCO are assholes" comment however.
Well...
Firstly, it's far from clear that she's deliberately tried to evade it.
Secondly, she wouldn't get to appear in court; deposition just means being grilled for hours by SCO's lawyers.
Thirdly she's trained as a paralegal, not an lawyer. Writing a scholarly paper on the martial arts will not turn you into Bruce Lee. Paralegal training doesn't imply skill in verbal debate.
Fourthly, it's her decision to make.
Fifthly, she's entitled to her privacy.
For points six and onwards, see point five.
Parent
Re:Fairly transparent what their strategy will be (Score:5, Informative)
She has? She hasn't been evasive at all about this issue. She has stated quite clearly, on many occasions, that she does not work for IBM, IBM does not pay her, the fact that IBM contributes to ibiblio had nothing to do with ibiblio's willingness to host her site, nor her decision to ask ibiblio for hosting, and that she really is just a paralegal with a passion for open source software and nothing better to do with her time than groklaw.
You can believe that she's lying, if you want, but she certainly hasn't evaded the issue at all. IIRC, IBM has also publicly denied any support for PJ or Groklaw. And if you believe their fine attorneys would allow them to lie about anything like that, you're nuts.
This statement implies that the has tried to avoid the subpoena. She says "No one tried to serve me that I knew about. No one informed me of any deposition date." Again, she could be lying, but her articles on Groklaw over the years indicate that PJ has a deep and abiding respect for the law and the legal process, and it seems very likely that had SCO or BSF used the e-mail link on her web site to let her know they were looking for her to serve a subpoena on her, she would have given them the information they needed.
Also, it seems very unlikely to me that a person who knows the law as well as PJ obviously does would do anything so foolish as lying in public about elements of a lawsuit related to her personally -- leave that to SCO. I'm sure she even cleared her disclaimer with her attorney before posting this most recent article, which deliberately doesn't say much, and points out that since she's personally involved, she can't say much.
Parent
If stock price translates to authority... (Score:5, Interesting)
Some interesting points (Score:5, Informative)
All Slashdot-ers with initials PJ.... (Score:5, Funny)
For authenticity you should be wearing your Spartacus gladiator arm shield or Roman slave tunic while typing.
2 people connected to the scox-scam killed already (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:2 people connected to the scox-scam killed alre (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
You obviously haven't been following the case (Score:5, Insightful)
These people have demonstrated time and time again how nasty they are. They have zero respect for the truth and there is an excellent chance that some of them are going to jail when this is over.
PJ has nothing to do with the case other than hosting the website that destroyed the FUD value of SCO's criminally frivolous lawsuits. Any evidence she gives will have no bearing on the outcome of the cases. They are just after her to harass her. She's not being shrill and paranoid, she's being realistic.
Parent
Re:You obviously haven't been following the case (Score:5, Interesting)
Small correction: PJ is not a Mormon (unless she's met with some missionaries and gotten baptized in the past 3 years). When she was supposedly "outed" (I don't recall her ever confirming any of O'Gara's claims), it was claimed that she is a Jehovah's Witness.
Many of the other people involved in the case (including Judge Kimball, Darl McBride, Brent Hatch, and so forth) are Mormons, but most Mormons (including me) who know about the case are quite frankly embarrassed by Darl's behavior. It certainly isn't in keeping with the teachings of the LDS Church.
Parent
Re:PJ spouting hyperbole (Score:5, Informative)
Given the facts in this case, and what Darl has said ad done, I too would be scared of what Darl would try to do.
Parent
Re:PJ spouting hyperbole (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:PJ spouting hyperbole (Score:5, Interesting)
Me, If I was SCO's number one enemy, I would not want to be known to them.
Parent
Re:PJ spouting hyperbole (Score:5, Insightful)
Lawyers and cops play special roles in our society. Those roles require they have powers which, if abused, could make our lives living hells. And bad as a rogue cop can be, short of killing you there's nothing he can do to you that's worse than what a rogue lawyer can do. Maybe they don't put a bullet in your head, but they can take the roof from over your head, the food off of your table, and medicine out of your medicine cabinet. For some people, people who have a responsibility to provide for others, a bullet in the head would be preferable.
So we rightly expect that cops and lawyers display a high degree of responsibility when it comes to the integrity of the system. To be a decent cop, I suppose you just need common sense, but a lawyer's ethics are much trickier because he's supposed to be a vigorous advocate for his client. The problem with abusive SLAPP lawsuits and even the use of empty legal threats is that they divide society into two classes: people with the resources to defend themselves and people who do not.
Does anybody have a duty to respect and cooperate with a system which unjustly oppresses them? Should we give power to people who will use it to wrong us for their clients' benefits? If we do, we'll end up with a two track system of justice in which one class of people can use the legal system to compel any behavior they wish from the other.
SLAPP suits and baseless legal extortion undermine the legitimacy of the system. The system should come down hard on lawyers who practice this kind of law. Not only should they be disbarred, they should be sent to jail to do hard time. We'd strip a cop of his badge and send him to jail if he was shaking down shopkeepers. I'd rather pay protection money to a cop than let a bad lawyer get his hooks into me.
Let me be clear that I don't hate lawyers. I admire the profession, and technical skills of it practitioners. But they have a higher duty of public ethics than a day laborer or cab driver, and when they breech that duty the damage they cause is unthinkable.
This by the way is why we should be concerned about the dismissal of David Iglesias. It is true that Mr. Iglesias served at the pleasure of the President; but the President has no more right to single out his political enemies for prosecution than he has to single out his friends to receive federal contracts. Mr. Iglesias, and indeed the President, have a duty to support and defend the Constitution, and the integrity of the legal system. As bad as the potential for abuse is for an ordinary lawyer, a prosecutor has the power to drop an unbearable burden of suspicion on anybody he choses. That power should only be exercised in the public interest.
Parent
Re:PJ spouting hyperbole (Score:5, Insightful)
True, but until they actually reach her with a subpoena, she's not under any legal requirement to do so. Hearing about a subpoena in the news (or via a motion she's retrieved from the internet) isn't nearly the same thing as actually being served. And if she's not actively dodging it (for example, if she's honestly taking a long-planned vacation somewhere and prefers to keep the destination private), then that's just SCO's tough luck.
I mean, really, why make it easy for SCO?
On a slightly different point, was it just me, or did this motion sound really whiny, even considering the history of this case?
Parent
Why should she? (Score:5, Insightful)
So why should she help them at all in their quest to slime her?
Parent
Re:PJ spouting hyperbole (Score:5, Insightful)
Aww, that's cute! Completely naive, but darling.
Seriously, have you ever been sued? Even when you are 100% sure that you are in the right, you still have to pay $250 an hour to your lawyer to fend off all the bullshit they care to throw. With SCO, that may be a near-infinite supply. And if you miss something in preparation or they find something that they can distort into an apparent problem? Then you could be well and truly fucked. Even if it all turns out perfectly, it's months or years of stress, just because there's so much on the line and so much out of your control.
Make no mistake: if somebody suggests you have "nothing to hide", that's the time to clam up completely.
Parent
Unix "ownership" (Score:4, Informative)
Many of the commercial Unices have some AT&T code in their kernels and utilities. Most of the original AT&T code has been bug-fixed out and there is serious dispute whether copyright applies on the remaining fragments. Other Unix variants are based on BSD code and lack any code where (AT&T/Novell/SCO) may claim copyright upon. Sun is a special case, as they contributed to SystemV and have more rights than mere SystemV licensees.
Are you still with me or did you lose the plot somewhere?
Sorry, you can not sue a document. There has to be a lawsuit regarding a real conflict between two legal entities.
Parent
Re:Truth, Justice, and the American way (Score:5, Insightful)
In the SCO case, PJ has in her own inimitable way, contributed to this case going the right way: She brings the actinic glare of illumination onto a process that SCO, and others, have tried to accomplish.
PJ started her blog several months before the SCO case became public knowledge, in order to connect geeks with legal concepts. She believed then and still believes that we (the technologists) should be aware of the rules of the game in order avoid being steamrolled by it.
I've been reading the blog since early 2003, and PJ sounds like a gentle spoken (she insists on decorum) but very very intelligent paralegal. The truth justice and the American way language is backed up by consistent and finely honed research and argument. Plus one additional ingredient, a very angry hornet's nest: 10,000+ pissed off developers, some of whom have been around from the inception of UNIX and derived technologies. PJ, more than anything else, has brought us together to face the threat from SCO and folks like them, and for that alone her contribution is inestimable.
Parent
Re:OSDL funding (Score:5, Insightful)
Unless IBM specifically instructs OSDL to forward the donation to Groklaw, they are not 'clearly' donating money through a third party. OSDL independently chooses to use the money in that way, OSDL makes that choice. Big difference.
Parent
Re:Time enough... (Score:5, Funny)
Personally, I'm hoping for a new verb, like "SCOpuku" (from 'seppuku') or at least "SCOicide". To wit:
SCOpuku: Destroying one's company by launching frivolous legal action against Open Source developers and/or companies. See SCO.
Parent