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.'"
Legally assaults? (Score:5, Funny)
SCNR
Re:Legally assaults? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Legally assaults? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Legally assaults? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I've heard... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I've heard... (Score:5, Funny)
that's funny... I thought they were trying to avoid him
Re:I've heard... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I've heard... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I've heard... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I've heard... (Score:4, Funny)
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?
OpenSolaris (Score:3, Informative)
Funded by Microsoft (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's shed light on the ridiculousness of software patents, and brought clarity to copyright law. Additionally it's shown that there are companies who are willing to stand up for Free Software, even at great expense.
I think those who have funneled money into SCO all deserve a round of applause for helping to validate Free Soft
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: (Score:3, 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.
Kinda my point. They dropped the pursuit of patent claims that were no better than their copyright claims, because they realized that it's more a more difficult to fight for the patent issues. I am not saying they blew the doors wide open, but the fact that they chose the copyright fight over the patent one demonstrates that not even complete idiots will try and fight Free Software over patent issues. (exaggeration, and flaimbait I know).
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.
Their case with IBM has clarified how Free Software can defend its
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.
Re: (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: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's certainly more desirable for Microsoft to interfere with both markets than to help either side win.
Sort of... (Score:3, Interesting)
So ya, they're still hanging in like a set of nasty klingons that resist toilet paper - but while I don't expect the big flush to come tomorrow, I really don't think they have any more than three months left.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They have publicly said
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)
Re:But Darl's got a gun. (Score:5, Funny)
(and to the mod trolls, no it's not off-topic, reread the parent).
Re:Is there something we can do to help? (Score:5, Funny)
why would she work for IBM... she works for me :) (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:why would she work for IBM... she works for me (Score:3, Insightful)
On the internet, no one knows you are a dog, so I make no assumptions about any presence unless I have first hand confirmation. So, does Pamela Jones exist, and if she does is she largely funded by IBM, and if she isn't does IBM have a presence in her life? I don't see any evidence to draw any conclusions. However, if it is true
You better re-read that filing (Score:3, Funny)
Beginning on page 3 of
http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/IBM-1018.pdf [groklaw.net]
You will see *numerous links to all sorts of blogs that reinforce SCO's theory about her. This, obviously, is damning evidence. Also, for about eleven minutes on August 6, 2006, the Wikipedia article on PJ clearly stated that she was an undercover IBM agent and a "$£77¥ h0!!!!"
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
How does that qualify as "reticent", exactly?
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.
Re:Stupidest...Is it really even stupid? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This whole thing could be an elaborate Microsoft scheme to discredit Linux:
1) Enrich Darl enough so that he won't care when his personal/corporate image is sullied (even further).
2) Have SCO file idiotic lawsuits to try to bury IBM in shit.
3) Have SCO maintain these lawsuits even when lack of evidence is exposed, basically displaying psychotic determination.
4) Regardless of the outcome of the trial, dump enough money into SCO to keep it on l
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
A
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yup.
>Registrant:
>Domains by Proxy, Inc.
>DomainsByProxy.com
>15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
>Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
>United States
So you need to deal with their lawyers first. That assumes that they know. The webmaster and the nameservers are in the Netherlands. But (if you do find him) I'm sure he'll be impressed by a subpoena from Utah.
Re: (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: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.
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
More Trouble (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (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 t
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.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Gagging PJ doesn't gag Groklaw. At worst she would have to hand it off to someone else for a while. This may be the smart thing to do regardless, because I'm sure SCO will try to have the deposition sealed, then try to talk about every single aspect of the case with her, then attack her if she says so much as her name in public.
But I suspect there are plenty of lawyers ready to go to bat for her, and if she needs to start a legal defense fund the donations will exceed SCO's market value within a few ho
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
Could that be the real reason they are trying?
Not that I think it will work. However they are so screwed that any possibility of even the tiniest link between PJ and IBM would be useful to them, or so they think.
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: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.
Re:Fairly transparent what their strategy will be (Score:4, Interesting)
If anything is clear, its that she has risked burnout by spending so much of her time on this one case. I am amazed she didn't take a break sooner.
I think they likely saw that she was on a break, and decided to try and serve her then, so they could say she was avoiding it.
I don't get the lack of ability to contact her. I've sent 5 emails to her over the years, and received responses by next day every time.
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: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.
Not quite right.... (Score:3, Interesting)
This motion is filed under SCO v IBM in order to get the deposition of PJ in SCO v Novell(when & if it happens) admitted to the SCO v IBM evidence.
SCO has already stated an intent to depose PJ for the Novell case, they just want to be able to add it to the IBM case. The general consensus is that it won't happen. Final discloures & depositions were supposed to be done over a year ago - adding this deposition will effectively re-open discovery after a year of waiting & the PSJ's have been argued.
Slashdotting (Score:3, Funny)
This proves "she" must really be IBM. (Joke.)
Seriously, I hope someday, somebody can write a short (one page) clear and simple
document explaining who owns the various *nix names and code.
I'd like this short document to be sued and win so make it "proven".
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.
If stock price translates to authority... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:If stock price translates to authority... (Score:4, Insightful)
For example, in the company I work for, in the same period, our stock has gone from approximately 1000 (split-adjusted) to 19 right now -- and we're even making a profit now, and weren't back then. Irrational exuberance [wikipedia.org] indeed!
It's called the dot-com bubble, and lots of stocks did that.
Truth, Justice, and the American way (Score:3, Interesting)
The lady noted "Forsooth, methinks SCO folk need to get better aligned with truth, justice, and the American way, as the saying goes. But that's the judges' job, so I'll end my comments about this here."
Was this hyperbole, or does she really have significant faith in the American justice system ? And this is not a rhetorical question. Others that read her often may want to answer.
As for me, I have not been certain about the meaning of the "American way" for several years. As a former U.S. marine and Libertarian, I had a tendency to believe that the U.S. Constitution represented the most realistic opportunity for "justice".
It now seems that the implementation does not meet the requirements of the abstraction.
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.
Some interesting points (Score:5, Informative)
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.
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.
If she really wants to remain anonymous... (Score:3, Informative)
2 people connected to the scox-scam killed already (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:2 people connected to the scox-scam killed alre (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
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.
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.
Re:PJ spouting hyperbole (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In the english legal system, from which the systems of the USA and others forked, barristers act not in their clients' interest, but primarily in the interests of justice. E.g. from the Irish Bar's [lawlibrary.ie] Code of Conduct [lawlibrary.ie], (which forked only 80 odd years ago from the English one), in the section on practicing barristers:
Barristers have an overriding duty to the Court to ensure in the public interest that the proper and efficient administration of justice is achieved and they must assist the Court in the administration of justice and must not deceive or knowingly mislead the court.
Barristers must promote and protect fearlessly and by all proper and lawful means their client's best interests and do so without regard to their own interest or to any consequences for themselves or to any other person including fellow members of the legal profession.
And note from the beginning of the code that all members of the Bar, practicing barristers or
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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?
The funny part (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I mean, really, why make it easy for SCO?
She's not under an affirmat
Re:PJ spouting hyperbole (Score:4, Informative)
She's not a lawyer, right? What makes her an "officer of the court"?
Why should she? (Score:5, Insightful)
So why should she help them at all in their quest to slime her?
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Besides, Groklaw is HER Blog, she can sa
Re:PJ spouting hyperbole (Score:4, Insightful)
Eloquently put.
Let me put the first reason this way. There is no law that says it is your responsibility to seek such service
I agree, and I stated as much in my post.
The second reason is the Constitutional right to privacy
The US Supreme Court has recognized something of a "right to privacy" in several cases, but of course the Constitution doesn't grant a general "right to privacy" in as explicit terms as I would like. That "right" protects you from unreasonable search and seizure in their "in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" (4th Amendment [cornell.edu]). It originally applied only to the federal government. By the 14th amendment it's been interpreted to extend to the state governments as well. In the instant case, no government is seeking PJ. At present, it's a private (i.e. non-governmental) entity, and no [federal] Constitutional right exists to privacy from a private entity.
Re:PJ spouting hyperbole (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070405
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
However, in this case we are talking about SCO. They have a long, documented history of not telling the truth. So claims by SCO of having attempted to serve her, even letters to the court claiming that they attempted to serve her, don't mean
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
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.
PJ: come towards the light .. :) (Score:3, Interesting)
But why did they process serve in Connecticut, while PJ is supposed to be in Hartsdale, New York? And why is it the entire SCO legal team can't seem to find her when Moggie O' Gara found it so easy? Maybe they should hire her on to find PJ.
'It is also, settled by case law that you cannot serve someone by email unless you have exhausted all possibly efforts to serve them in person in order to affect a certainty of awareness of the sub