SCO Legally Assaults PJ of Groklaw 340
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.'"
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.
Funded by Microsoft (Score:5, Informative)
Some interesting points (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Correction! (Score:3, Informative)
by SCO as evidence that PJ/Groklaw have interferred with their Busines and to justify
deposing her.
Most of them seem to be net gossip/comment.
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.
The funny part (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:IANAL, but surely.... (Score:3, Informative)
And if you are a domain owner and allowing random people to use your website without the ability to find out exactly who they are, you are setting yourself up for a liability issue on that one point alone. Again, you don't have to go out of your way to disclose exactly who everybody is, but information about an individual is often available even if the website owner is not publicly disclosing that information.
If you are hyper-paranoid about privacy, you can connect to websites using an anonymous proxy and use a throw-away e-mail address from someplace like yahoo or hotmail where you register with fictional information. While not perfect (you are depending that the proxy logs are getting wiped regularly) it is possible. Unfortunately (or fortunate for most law enforcement types), most people are lazy and don't go through those steps. Especially if you use an on-line personna for any length of time, some personal details are going to come out one way or another.
Re:PJ spouting hyperbole (Score:4, Informative)
She's not a lawyer, right? What makes her an "officer of the court"?
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.
Re:PJ spouting hyperbole (Score:2, Informative)
Correct, she's not, she is simply assumed to be by many. She is a paralegal, and is not admitted to the bar in any jurisdiction. I suppose that's just a pet peeve of mine...
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?
Re:PJ spouting hyperbole (Score:4, Informative)
You are absolutely correct -- that was a bit of a jab on my part. I'm not a huge fan of Groklaw, or the way it is run. PJ's opinions are taken as fact or as prevailing legal opinion in their entirity by many, and that is annoying to me. She advocates a position, which is of course a lawyerly thing to do, while leaving out other arguments (see, e.g., the groklaw wikipedia page [wikipedia.org]).
She may or may not work for IBM -- it doesn't really matter to me, and I honestly don't think it matters legally. At the same time, if she really values the law instead of a pulpit for her personal ideology, she should seek being served. She can blog about her personal experiences -- about a blogger becoming involved in her topic.
nail them in the courtroom? (Score:2, Informative)
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.
Re:PJ spouting hyperbole (Score:1, Informative)
There is one easy answer to your argument..........BULLSHIT
Let me put the first reason this way. There is no law that says it is your responsibility to seek such service
The second reason is the Constitutional right to privacy
Your reasoning fails because it does not matter if a person does or does not have anything to hide...... it is not that persons responsibility until the papers are in her hand.
Re:Legally assaults? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:PJ spouting hyperbole (Score:2, Informative)
Re:SCO still exists? (Score:3, Informative)
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.
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.
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?
All I was saying with my post, is that this entire legal proceeding has given Free Software credibility that it lacked prior to SCO making its outlandish claims. This case could have broken the back of Linux and Free Software, given it a reputation as a bunch of thieves and hackers (with common negative connotation). This would have occurred if IBM had not chosen to fight, or had lost... so I thank IBM for their all of their efforts! And I thank SCO for picking the wrong target!
Re:PJ spouting hyperbole (Score:2, Informative)
Nope.... no cigar for you. You are completely wrong about actively seeking to be served. That's just utter non-sense and one that just shows it is you who does not value the law. The law says it is the person serving the papers responsibility. I fail to see how that is so hard to understand.
Re:More Trouble (Score:3, Informative)
You mean libel, right? According to wiki slander is a harmful statement in a transitory form, especially speech. Libel is a harmful statement in a fixed medium, especially writing but also a picture, sign, or electronic broadcast. Since SCO talked to the press (and they knew they were talking to the press), it's libel.
If she really wants to remain anonymous... (Score:3, Informative)
Don't forget Sun (Score:2, Informative)
http://news.com.com/2100-1016_3-1024633.html [com.com]
Re:why would she work for IBM... she works for me (Score:3, Informative)
How does that qualify as "reticent", exactly?
Re:PJ spouting hyperbole (Score:3, Informative)
Canopy (and Noorda's family and associates,) apparently are not people who have both oars in the water.
Does anyone want to speculate as to whether PJ has a right to fear these deaths were other than self-inflicted? Under the circumstances, would YOU feel threatened by these people?
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.
Re:Fairly transparent what their strategy will be (Score:4, Informative)
Remember that PJ worked for something like 2 weeks at ODSL a couple of years ago, and now SCO is claiming that IBM was simply using ODSL to funnel money to her. In other words, IBM gave ODSL a big chunk of cash which they in turn used to pay her. SCO claims it was $50K or something like that.
PJ promptly resigned when she realized that SCO was going to twist her employment there, and it's a miracle that it's taken them this long to pull it off. Part of the problem that they have is that she's been at it now for 4 years, so, even if they're right, she's mananged to make minimum wage. But there's no reason to believe that they're actually right.
Most people aren't evil. Most people don't shit in their own bed. SCO is being run by people who are truly evil and will destroy anybody and anything to make a buck.
Re:SCO still exists? (Score:3, Informative)
To people who have a clue and pay attention, I agree.
However, I have run into people, and I mean IT managers, directors, sysadmins, who honestly thought there was "legal problems" with that "Linux stuff".
There was damage done with this FUD and it has not gone completely away.
Re:IANAL, but surely.... (Score:2, Informative)
Not that the ethics it teaches are especially transformative
You can find the rules here: http://www.abanet.org/cpr/mrpc/mrpc_toc.html [abanet.org]
timothy
OpenSolaris (Score:3, Informative)
Re:IANAL, but surely.... (Score:3, Informative)
Administrative Contact:
Private, Registration GROKLAW.COM@domainsbyproxy.com
Domains by Proxy, Inc.
DomainsByProxy.com
15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
United States
(480) 624-2599
Why is groklaw so secretive? If they do end up working for IBM in any way I hope they apologize and fold up for being astrturf.
Re:PJ spouting hyperbole (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070405
Re:PJ spouting hyperbole (Score:3, Informative)