decoration decoration

When you want to know more...
For layout only
Site Map
About Groklaw
Legal Research
ApplevSamsung p.2
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Gordon v MS
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
MS Litigations
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
OOXML Appeals
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v Novell
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Unix Books


Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.

You won't find me on Facebook


Donate Paypal

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.

What's New

No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

A Bit of the Blarney -- or Worse? -- About "Lost" Code
Saturday, October 23 2004 @ 03:38 PM EDT

It used to be funny pointing out mistakes in reporters' stories.

But when a reporter prints something that isn't just misinformed but hurtfully inaccurate, I think it's more serious. As you likely know, Maureen O'Gara printed a story about what allegedly was said in the last court hearing between IBM and SCO. That, in and of itself, is ethically problematic, to me, since the court ordered the transcript sealed. The source of her "information" would be whom, would you guess?

It wouldn't surprise me if IBM follows up on that aspect of the matter. I would.

Groklaw had eyewitnesses at the hearing. None of them reports seeing Ms. O'Gara there. Furthermore, none of them heard what she "reports" about IBM supposedly claiming not to be able to find code it was supposed to turn over. Let me repeat that. IBM never said anything like that, according to our eyewitnesses. I absolutely can tell you that the O'Gara story does not match what they heard. They also told me that the screen was placed in such a way that no one in the audience could see it. How then does Ms. O'Gara know what was shown on the screen?

Nor does it make any sense. For starters, IBM said at the hearing that they have produced all the code they have been ordered to produce to date. They have produced all released versions of AIX which they were told to turn over. That isn't even in dispute. The hearing was about whether IBM should now be required to produce more code, now that SCO couldn't find any infringing code in the millions of lines it already received. The judge hasn't decided that issue. Second, SCO's Third Amended Complaint has not yet, to my knowledge, been accepted by the court. Even if we posit that it will be, IBM has not yet even answered it, let alone been found in violation of anything having to do with it or even been accused of such.

I therefore conclude that Ms. O'Gara has been provided with some misinformation, or she has decided to spread a bit of the Blarney sua sponte.

Courts are not fond of Blarney, as it happens. Truth is not a joke to them. I don't know if SCO is behind this and if so whether it's because they see a spin opportunity because the transcript is sealed or for some other motive, so I won't speculate. I do know this: Ms. O'Gara attacks Groklaw at every opportunity, so she reads what we write. In this very article about the court hearing, she writes that our eyewitnesses were impressed by SCO's new lawyer. So she knew that she had available to her other sources of information on what actually happened in that court room. She did not contact me before writing her story.

But here is another issue: This inaccurate report was printed by LinuxWorld. They are responsible for publishing it. Unless they take immediate action to correct, I suggest the only conclusion I can reach is that they are hostile to Linux. If they are hostile to Linux, why would I care to read LinuxWorld?

Happily, Groklaw isn't dependent on ads or on any outside entity, so there is nothing to pressure us to tell you anything but the truth. We are noncommercial and have no ads to influence anything. One way the community supports our work is by showing up at these hearings, so we are not dependent on "reporters" who "report" on events they apparently did not attend and with an obvious, to us, bias. I don't know why Ms. O'Gara loves SCO, but to me it shows.

And at this moment, aren't you glad Groklaw had witnesses there? If Groklaw had not attended the hearing, Ms. O'Gara could write absolutely anything, and with a sealed transcript, who'd know the difference? As it is, Groklaw can stand up and say, No. We were there. It didn't happen that way.

Someday, this transcript will likely be opened to the public, and then we will be able to check for ourselves. In the meantime, you are free to choose who you wish to believe. I know who I believe, because they've reported from prior court hearings and been substantially correct. And Groklaw's eyewitnesses say: this report in Linuxworld doesn't match what they saw and heard and IBM did *not* tell "SCO Court It Can't Find AIX-on-Power Code" in the context of code they were supposed to have turned over.

I have not provided a link deliberately. If you wish to read her article, you can find it, I'm sure by a Google search or off of Slashdot, since they made what I consider the unfortunate editorial decision to give the story more widespread readership than it otherwise would have received.


LinuxWorld has put out a statement that Maureen O'Gara stands by her story and will seek to unseal the transcript, as well as presenting their view of matters at this point, Monday, October 25.

Update 2: It turns out that Ms. O'Gara apparently was not there, according to Groklaw's two eyewitnesses, both of whom looked at the picture she appends to all her articles, and the reporter there for the Salt Lake Tribune, Bob Mims, who privately informed Groklaw that he never saw her there that day.

To provide more information, SCO's Third Amended Complaint, which was not the focus of the discussion, was still, on the day of the hearing, sealed, meaning Ms. O'Gara couldn't properly have read it unless SCO lawyers or someone showed it to her, which would have been .... well, odd is the nicest word. There was no discussion reported by our eyewitnesses about any "missing code" on IBM's part. And further, one of our eyewitnesses saw a portion, a fairly large portion, of what was shown on the screen, because of his position in the seating area. It's a very small room. There were only about 30 people there, I'm told. What he saw was a list of all the AIX versions from the beginning, but IBM was only told to turn over the ones after the date in the May order. What was in red was simply the ones IBM was not told to turn over, hence the ones SCO at this hearing was asking for in addition.

I'm further informed that what IBM did say was simply that it couldn't find any other discoverable documents in the files of any senior management or the board of directors. IBM did not say, according to our witnesses, that it couldn't find any AIX-on-Power code, as was misreported by O'Gara. SCO mocked that (perhaps forgetting that Darl McBride also had nothing much, claiming not to use email much), and the judge did ask IBM to provide a sworn affidavits from top management and the board regarding what documents exist. And both sides were told to exchange privilege logs. That, at least, was reported correctly or at least in conformity with what our eyewitnesses reported to me. IBM did not tell the judge that they cannot find some code that SCO had demanded in discovery.

For historians, the lawyers in attendance were the following:

For SCO:
Shawn Escovitz
Fred Frei
Ted Norman
Brent Hatch
(and a host of others, but no sign of Silver)

For IBM:
David Marriott
Chris Kao
Todd Shaughnessy
(and several others)

For SCO, Escovitz spoke, with a short appearance by Frei. For IBM, only Marriott spoke.

Update 3: Also for historians, you can find an archived copy of the article here:

Ms. O'Gara also has an archived version here:

Part of what she wrote was:

Anyway, the sealed Third Amended Complaint has to do with SCO's contention that - to compete against Sun - IBM put SCO-owned SVR4 code in System 3-based AIX for its proprietary Power chip architecture - and one of the supposedly compromising IBM e-mails - that SCO just happened to read out loud in court the other day - suggests that IBM was conscious that it had overstepped the bounds of its Project Monterey contract with SCO, which was intended to produce only a version of AIX for Intel's Itanium chip (CSN No 564).

Well, during the Third Amended Complaint discussion, SCO's lawyer held up a piece of paper - that was duplicated on a projection screen that only the magistrate judge, Brooke Wells, could see - that listed all of the AIX code that IBM has and hasn't turned over to SCO. And SCO's lawyer pointed out that the only piece of code that IBM hasn't come up with - which was highlighted in red - was the AIX-on-Power code - to which IBM's lawyer replied that IBM "can't find it."

Shades of the Compuware suit. They "can't find it."

Makes one wonders whether IBM looked in that closet in Australia where it said a few weeks ago it just happened to stumble over the source code - the source code it swore - literally swore in court for two years - didn't exist - the code that it was supposed to produce during the court-ordered discovery phase of the suit that Compuware brought against IBM for, well, for stealing its source code.

IBM only managed to find the code after discovery had closed and the trial was about to start, a situation that it got its ears boxed for by the District Court for Eastern Michigan, which called its behavior "gross negligence."

Magistrate Wells has yet to cross that bridge, however.


A Bit of the Blarney -- or Worse? -- About "Lost" Code | 398 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections Here.
Authored by: Brian S. on Saturday, October 23 2004 @ 08:48 PM EDT
Brian S.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Bridge area.
Authored by: Brian S. on Saturday, October 23 2004 @ 08:50 PM EDT
Brian S.

[ Reply to This | # ]

A Bit of the Blarney -- or Worse? -- About "Lost" Code
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 23 2004 @ 08:51 PM EDT
This is also on, which is certainly pro-Linux. I posted a
comment there alerting people to the story here -- Robert Krawitz,

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 23 2004 @ 08:52 PM EDT
OT stuff goes here.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Telling other peoples lies.....
Authored by: kawabago on Saturday, October 23 2004 @ 08:55 PM EDT
is the best job an incompetent can get.

Just Believe.

[ Reply to This | # ]

A Bit of the Blarney
Authored by: Weeble on Saturday, October 23 2004 @ 08:56 PM EDT
I wouldn't call it "Blarney". While the dictionary definition may
support the use, my usual sense of the word is more like "eloquence".

Nor would I call it just a "Bit".

I'd call it "A Whole Lot of the BALONEY." I find that to be more
"spot on", as some of our members like to say.

(I'm not going to say what country I think "spot on" comes from after
being corrected about "whinge". Is "spot on" from the UK,
Oz, or somewhere else?)

MS Windows doesn't HAVE security holes--it IS a security hole.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Poor journalism
Authored by: StLawrence on Saturday, October 23 2004 @ 08:58 PM EDT
Maybe Ms. O'Gara has been collaborating with Dan Rather. It seems
they both do the same kind of fact-checking...

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT here. So I can post this about Firefox.
Authored by: Brian S. on Saturday, October 23 2004 @ 09:00 PM EDT
"New York Times, here we come"

"The Foundation was hoping that around $70k
would be raised over the course of 10 days. The overwhelming success of the
drive means that one or two ads will appear in the New York Times around the
release of Firefox 1.0."

"Firefox benefits from being perceived as the best
Windows browser on the planet, while remaining free and open

Whose going to argue about
that last sentiment.

Firefox is a real eye opener for many Windoze users,
especially if you demonstrate it to IE types. They can see the difference with
speed and tabbed browsing but the clincher is often some of the extensions. They
seem to think they're magic.

Brian S.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Dealing with unethical reporters.
Authored by: JScarry on Saturday, October 23 2004 @ 09:01 PM EDT
We know that Rob Enderle, Daniel Lyons, Maureen O'Gara, and Laura Didio
have lost all credibility. Likewise Forbes, LinuxInsider, and now LinuxWorld
are on my "Do Not Read" list.

In the short term the companies that print their articles get more hits and so
they probably rationalize it as revenue generating investigative journalism.

The best way to get this kind of thing to stop is to e-mail the other writers at

these sites and explain how their reputation is being tainted by association
with people who have little or no regard for fact-based reporting. Most of the
writers are free-lancers so they will realize that it is in their best interest
place their articles where their reputations will remain intact.

Be polite and explain why you distrust what they have written. If enough
people write to the good journalists, we can influence policies.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCOX's turns court transcripts closed-source
Authored by: Walter Dnes on Saturday, October 23 2004 @ 09:12 PM EDT
SCOX's legal cases (or lack thereof) have been getting torn apart mercilessly
by the FOSS community within minutes of being presented. With "many
eyes", all the bugs in their legal "programs" are shallow. I
doubt that Cravath, etal rely on us for their strategy, but it does impact
negatively on SCOX's stock price to have the flaws in their case publically

It looks like SCOX has come up with a "cloaking" strategy. Read one
or two excerpts of privileged material, and the judge seals the transcript. A
couple of questions from a foreigner unfamiliar with the US court system...

1) Is it possible to petition the court to release a redacted transcript
(privileged stuff deleted)?

2) Shouldn't SCOX and/or their lawyers get sanctioned for this garbage?

If SCOX gets away with this once, I can guarantee you that they *WILL* repeat
this stunt whenever they feel like it.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Is this libel?
Authored by: Jude on Saturday, October 23 2004 @ 09:17 PM EDT
I would consider the misreported event to be damaging to IBM's reputation. Is
this libel? If not, why not?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Frankenstein's McBride
Authored by: belzecue on Saturday, October 23 2004 @ 09:40 PM EDT
What is it that brings out the worst in people like MOG and RE?

Recently, MOG starts putting her face on her articles.

Next, she takes a really nasty swipe at Groklaw and IBM and gets 15000+ page
views for her latest SCO job, astronomically more views than any regular
article, thanks to through traffic from Groklaw.

Methinks somebody is enjoying the infamy of being Frankenstein's McBride. Plus
she's now the darling of Linuxworld's ad dept (which I suspect is her also).

[ Reply to This | # ]

Bob Mims also did not mention it.
Authored by: whoever57 on Saturday, October 23 2004 @ 09:43 PM EDT
As well as the "Groklaw reporters" that were there, so was Bob Mims of
the SLC Tribune. His report also made no mention of IBM's lawyers claiming to
have "lost code".

So I know whom I believe. It would be very interesting to know who is driving
the editorial policy of Linux[world|insider].

[ Reply to This | # ]

A small amount of research on her..
Authored by: eamacnaghten on Saturday, October 23 2004 @ 09:44 PM EDT
I have done a small amount of research on Maureen O'Gara.

First impressions are that she is based on the east coast (I may be wrong here) so it is unlikely she would have treked over to Utah for the hearing.

In her writings she does not seem to be anti-Linux at all, though she is not scared of controversy. In fact she seems to embrace it whenever she has the opportunity. Like many journalists her priority seems to be to gain readership rather than recite facts (the story mentioned here is labelled "hot" on one of the pages referring her articles and has had a large number of viewings for her).

Just before the SCO shenanigins started she seemed to have prior knowledge of what was going to happen suggesting she had contacts in SCO/Canopy at the time.

Given the above I think it is more than likely she was given the information from the SCO/Canopy headquarters and, what with the story being nice and controversal, she wrote it up. I am prepared to give her the benefit of the doubt and think that she did not write anything she thought to be inaccurate, but she was lied to. Wether she should have done more research or not is a different matter.

Also, to be fair to her, her article is not anti-linux. In so far as much the issue in the 3rd amended counterclaim is if IBM improperly put code into AIX for powerPC that originated from Monterey, then this has absolutely nothing to do with Linux. I agree that McBride will probably spin it to suggest that Linux is unclean because of it, but he does that for anything. Also I admit that it would help finance SCO to cause more trouble should the court find in their direction on the issue, however I do not think that would actually effect Linux adoption much. SCO have ranted and raved like Rumpelstiltskin so much that anything short of "Yup - Linux is SCO's" from the court is not going to effect things much. And all that is hardly Ms O'Gara's doing anyway.

I think we are reading too much into the article and are being unfair on Maureen O'Gara. Although this article is inaccurate, and she may regret writing it, I do not think we can be judgemental to her just over it (we all make mistakes), and I think the correct thing to do is to ignore this article as a one off and move on, only to return to it if Ms O'Gara makes a habbit of relaying SCO rubbish or of drumming up readership by disrupting the FOSS movement.

My 2c worth

Web Sig: Eddy Currents

[ Reply to This | # ]

Other oddities about O'Gara's article
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 23 2004 @ 09:52 PM EDT
At the hearing, one of SCO's lawyers, another young thing from Boies, Schiller & Flexner whose footwork was smooth enough to impress even Groklaw's IBM-dazzled observers, mentioned the little matter of SCO's days-old Third Amended Complaint, which, alas, is under seal reportedly because it's based on some e-mail that turned up during discovery that IBM now claims is privileged though there's supposedly no hint of attorney-client communication about it.
How does Ms O'Gara know the content of sealed IBM emails?

How does Ms O'Gara know "there's supposedly no hint of attorney-client communication about it" ?

Anyway, the sealed Third Amended Complaint has to do with SCO's contention that - to compete against Sun - IBM put SCO-owned SVR4 code in System 3-based AIX for its proprietary Power chip architecture - and one of the supposedly compromising IBM e-mails - that SCO just happened to read out loud in court the other day - suggests that IBM was conscious that it had overstepped the bounds of its Project Monterey contract with SCO, which was intended to produce only a version of AIX for Intel's Itanium chip (CSN No 564).
How does Ms O'Gara know the content of SCO's 3rd amended complaint, which is supposedly sealed?

She also told IBM to get affidavits from IBM management, including CEO Sam Palmisano, the CTO of IBM's Unix/Linux interests Irving Wladawsky-Berger and IBM's board of directors, attesting that nothing more exists in their files regarding IBM's Linux activities.
What Wells actually ordered:
2. IBM is provide affidavits from the Board of Directors, Mr. Palmisano and Mr. Wladawsky-Berger regarding production of all non-privileged documents pertaining to IBM's Linux strategy. The affidavits are to be filed within 30 days from the entry of this order.
Has Ms O'Gara read Magistrate Judge Wells order?


1. The difference between "Linux activities" (O'Gara), versus "Linux strategy" (Wells' actual order) - quite a big difference IMHO! Note, that in the next paragraph, O'Gara talks about the documents being anything "about Linux", which is even more of a contrast...

2. The difference between "attesting that nothing more exists" (O'Gara), versus "regarding production of all non-privileged documents" (Wells' actual order). This combined with the overbroad categories Ms O'Gara (noted in item 1), compounds the problem. I believe that Ms O'Gara is inaccurate to characterize IBM's position is that "there are no other e-mails, memos, business plans or presentations about Linux anywhere in the joint"

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw - all about IBM
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 23 2004 @ 10:01 PM EDT
A fair comment, considering the record. O'Gara makes a good point about IBM's
past history, which is permanently ignored on this site. Seems every position
ever taken here is right down the IBM line. Or is there an example of it not?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Just one look
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 23 2004 @ 10:20 PM EDT
At Maureen and I was biased already. Some peopel have a face for radio.

[ Reply to This | # ]

As an Irishman
Authored by: Pat Pending on Saturday, October 23 2004 @ 10:26 PM EDT
- (well, someone of Irish heritage who has never set foot on the emerald isle),
I must say that I am *deeply offended* by the cruel stereotypes perpetuated in
this article!
I've had it *up to here* (obviously not very far) with the way my peeps are
dissed so cavalierly!
How much are we supposed to endure? Here's a 'short' list:
Chief O'Hara
Archie Bunker
The Lucky Charms Leprechaun
The Notre Dame Fightin' Irish Guy
... and now it's this O'Gara character!

P.S. Ever try to read 'LinuxWorld' in FireFox? everything ends up in a column a
half inch wide, so you have to read it vertically.

Thanks again,

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 23 2004 @ 10:56 PM EDT
PJ has been whining about LinuxWorld ever since
Maureen O'gara ran Daniel Wallace's article
debunking the GPL about being a contract.
PJ even had lawyer friend attempt to refute
him to no avail. How do you overrule the
Supreme Court?

LinuxWorld carried a comment that put the final
nail in the coffin of the theory about the GPL.

"No formal granting of a license is necessary in order to
give it effect. Any language used by the owner of the patent
or any conduct on his part exhibited to another, from which
that other may properly infer that the owner consents to his
use of the patent in making or using it, or selling it, upon
which the other acts, constitutes a license, and a defense
to an action for a tort. Whether this constitutes a
gratuitous license, or one for a reasonable compensation,
must, of course, depend upon the circumstances; but the
relation between the parties thereafter in respect of any
suit brought must be held to be contractual, and not an
unlawful invasion of the rights of the owner."
U.S. 236 (1927)

"A license is governed by the laws of contract. See McCoy v.
Mitsuboshi Cutlery, Inc., 67 F.3d 917, 920, 36 USPQ2d 1289,
1291 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ("Whether express or implied, a
license is a contract governed by ordinary principles of
state contract law.").
JAZZ PHOTO, ET AL. v ITC, 264 F.3d 1094 (Fed. Cir. 2001)

Since the law is not on the side of the GPL everyone pounds
on the table and then LinuxWorld. Attacking LinuxWorld and
Maureen O'gara won't make the truth go away. SCO was right
that the GPL is dead. It seems Groklaw can't argue law or
facts, just personal attacks.

Shout down or censor what you don't like... but it won't
go away --- free software is DOA.


[ Reply to This | # ]

O'Gara claims it was a satirical piece
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 23 2004 @ 11:19 PM EDT
On the reader feedback. But you never know. She said that "the editors did
not realise this" and we got this piece of garbage instead. Hmmmmm.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Maureen O'Gara commented ...
Authored by: Anthony on Saturday, October 23 2004 @ 11:27 PM EDT
This now appears at the bottom of the article in question:

Maureen O'Gara commented ...
I'm really sorry everyone. I want you all to know that this was really intended as a satire piece, but the editors didn't realise and have published it as fact.

It was really hard to keep a straight face while writing it, and I was obviously hoping for the same reaction from my readers.

Oh, the ads here are satire too. Have you read the M$ TCO one? It's a hoot!

[ Reply to This | # ]

A Bit of the Blarney -- or Worse? -- About "Lost" Code
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 23 2004 @ 11:44 PM EDT
Yes, it was removed. I read the article earlier today, using a link from
LinuxToday. I just checked; LinuxToday has removed the story.


[ Reply to This | # ]

OT: A little gem in DeFazio
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 24 2004 @ 12:13 AM EDT
I just noticed what looks like a little gem in DeFazio declaration.

Mr DeFazio refers to Ed Chatlos involvement in the process.

Now if I remember correctly Mr Chatlos left Novell in about September 1995, but the APA was signed in December 1995.

And Mr Chatlos declares that he is not aware of the Santa Cruz not getting the entire UNIX business including copyrights (yes there's that kind of double negative in that the declaration).

Well it seems to me that paragraphs 42-43 could explain Mr Chatlos' lack of awareness of this...

Emphasis added...

42. Ed Chatlos and I were responsible for negotiating the sale of Novell's Unix businesses to Santa Cruz. Novell had two principal Unix businesses. The first was the USL legacy business of licensing Unix System V source code to other Unix system vendors, who may use, modify and distribute the software under the terms of the license agreements. The second was the UnixWare business, which developed, manufactured and distributed to end users (either directly or through third parties), in object code format, products derived from Unix System V under the brand name "UnixWare."

43. Initially, Santa Cruz expressed an interest in purchasing both of these businesses. However, the royalty stream associated with the Unix System V source code licensing business led to a total valuation for both businesses that Santa Cruz stated it could not afford. Therefore, Santa Cruz proposed that Novell retain the legacy Unix System V source code licensing business and Santa Cruz purchase only the UnixWare business. Under this proposal, Santa Cruz would administer the collection of royalties under the Unix System V source code license agreements and pass through these royalties to Novell for a fee.

44. Novell accepted the proposal, and the Asset Purchase Agreement was drafted to reflect the parties' understanding. To that end, Section 4.16(a) of the Asset Purchase Agreement provides that Novell generally receives any royalties payable under the Unix System V source code license agreements, including the IBM Related Agreements and the Sequent Related Agreements, and Novell pays Santa Cruz a 5% administrative fee for its services in collecting such royalties.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Satire piece?
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 24 2004 @ 12:23 AM EDT

One of the comments on LinuxWorld makes it sound like the piece was intended to be satire. If so, did she ever miss the mark.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Not satire - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 24 2004 @ 06:13 AM EDT
A Bit of the Blarney -- or Worse? -- About "Lost" Code
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 24 2004 @ 12:32 AM EDT
I heard that the piece was intended as a joke or satire, but was mistakenly
printed as a genuine article.

Just another weird twist in a weird case.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Worse, IMHO, but better.
Authored by: Xenographic on Sunday, October 24 2004 @ 12:55 AM EDT
I wouldn't worry so much.

True, what they're doing is quite dispicable. Underhanded, no doubt, because
they expect the same from IBM (despite there being no evidence of any such
practices by IBM in this conflict).

However, in the end, it only works to undermine their claim. They're buying a
bit of short-term FUD vs. a long-term victory & exoneration for IBM. IBM
exectuives are not stupid; they've had their eyes on the long-term from the

Yes, I agree--it's quite infuriating to have to listen to them blather on
endlessly. They won't go quietly or quickly, but in the end their own
dishonesty will cause their demise. Painful for us, yes, in the interim, but
rather poetic in its way...

[ Reply to This | # ]

A Bit of the Blarney -- or Worse? -- About "Lost" Code
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 24 2004 @ 01:25 AM EDT
A letter to the LinuxWorld editors. Please, no comments from the peanut gallery
along the lines of "LinuxWorld is BS," "Maureen's full of
it," or "they don't care about facts." We've got plenty of that
elsewhere in the larger thread. I figured honey is more effective than

----cut here------
Dear Linuxworld Editors:

There seems to be some confusion about some of the statements in Maureen
O'Gara's article "IBM Tells SCO Court It Can't Find AIX-on-Power

According to a post on Groklaw
"A Bit of the Blarney -- or Worse? -- About 'Lost' Code", Saturday,
October 23
2004 @ 03:38 PM EDT
(, this article may
have factual holes in it. Related links are:
Motions for Today's Hearing, Tuesday, October 19 2004 @ 09:21 AM
Judge Wells Takes It Under Advisement, Tuesday, October 19 2004 @ 03:10 PM EDT
(, and
Today's Hearing in SCO v. IBM - Eyewitness Reports -- What Does Any of This
Have to Do With Linux? Tuesday, October 19 2004 @ 04:27 PM EDT

I'm sure you trust your writers to write factual, unbiased news articles. You
have to. However, you also have an obligation to do some fact-checking. As
the transcript of this hearing is sealed, fact-checking may be difficult.

Under the circumstances, LinuxWorld has an obligation to notify its readers
1) it did check the facts and stands behind them
2) it could not check the facts, but will do so when they can be properly
3) it did not do fact-checking

Please post an addendum to this story indicating you have checked the facts or
you will do so when it becomes possible to do so. Also, please consider
replying directly to the Groklaw story, "A Bit of the Blarney," and
point to
the addendum.

I hope I can continue to count on LinuxWorld for unbiased reporting of news
important to the Linux community.
----cut here------

[ Reply to This | # ]

Blarney -- or Worse: O'Gara on Holiday
Authored by: fudnutz on Sunday, October 24 2004 @ 01:55 AM EDT
I hadn't been to Ireland for twenty years. My first trip was part of a
school tour of Europe. It reminded me of a third world Central American country
with all those people begging in the cities, walking in the countryside and
carrying sticks. I learned a lesson quickly at St. Stephen's Green where a
red-cheeked, thick-legged urchin knocked my fist full of change to the four
winds. This was before I even knew how to count the money.
My great Aunt, "Tia Elena," had died in Baranquilla, Columbia.
Unlike any of my other Latin relatives, she was tall, pale, white-haired, and
had a green vein in her neck. As a child emeralds and shamrocks could not
replace my aunt's green vein as the source of Irish color. We had picked up her
correspondence with a nun in Australia who told us where in Ireland she was from
and who might still be there. "Tia Elena's" original name had been
Helen Manning from the Dingle Peninsula. I had located a distant cousin who was
a retired Gaelic scholar who had worked for the government. He lived near
A lawyer friend, Hugh O'Neil, accompanied me back to Ireland. I provided a
good excuse for him to not only move up his annual summer trip, but to change
his mind and return in the summer anyway. He wished to find a place in Ireland
for his retirement and last days. His wishes came to pass all too soon, God
rest his soul.
We rented a car at the airport and immediately had to contend with driving
on the left like the English. We soon adjusted,though neither he nor I would
ever take our eyes off the road.
I had a much more difficult time as a pedestrian around Trinity College.
Pedestrians tend to follow the traffic rules of vehicles. So when walking
toward an Irish pedestrian, I would lapse into the American way of passing on
the right. The Irishperson would seek to pass on the left. I say
'Irishperson" though I distinctly remember most of my collisions being with
women. When this happened, I would try to say "excuse me."
I was invariably beaten in response by the Irishperson who would say
"Sorry." This happened repeatedly. It was I who owed an apology. I
was new to the rules. It was I who should be sorry. But the Irish were
relentless. They would share no blame.
My cousin lived in a suburb of Dublin called Stillorgan about 9 miles from
downtown. He suggested a B & B nearby where we could stay. Suffice it to
say that it must have been one of the largest and most luxurious B & B's in
Stillorgan. We checked in, visited my cousin, and returned late after dinner.
My cousin was a fascinating man. He knew everything about Ireland and its
history. Indeed he had written books, the most noteworty being "Freemantle
Mission," an IRA rescue of prisoners in Australia. As interesting as he
was, he enjoyed our visit immensely. Visits were rare. In his retirment he
attended his wife who suffered from Parkinsonism. While she could sit up, she
was down to the shaky use of her right arm. Unfortunateley she could not enjoy
our visit. So my cousin had to interrupt our long visit sporadically, but it
was well worth it.
The next morning I went down to the dining room for breakfast. There I met
a Miss Sinead O'Gara who was on holiday from Dublin. She worked in Dublin and
lived with her ill mother, but every year at this time she got away to
Stillorgan. I poured myself some tea and asked Miss O'Gara to pass the sugar.
"Sorry" she almost gasped and quickly passed me the sugar. She
then looked over the table as if there was something else there she should know
I might need. There was actually but I could not bring myself to ask her to
pass it. I had to face it. "Sorry" was just one of those cultural
words that I was only beginning to understand.
Hugh and I made another visit to my cousin and then made a mad dash through
County Wicklow. In Glendalough we made a killing on prints.
It was warm that day so when we returned to the B & B, we decided to
shower before dinner. This decision was made at the corner pub over a couple
dark pints. The bathroom was at the end of the hall. Our room was in the
middle. No one seemed to be in the B & B. I guess the pints made me a bit
insensitive and venturous. Now I am not a thin man and the only towel left me
was threadbare. But that is all I took with me when I ventured down the hall to
the shower. I was worried because I had singed my eyebrows once on a gas
heating contraption mounted over a shower in Germany. Fortunately this shower
was uneventful. The poor towel was soaked and formfitting when I passed into
the hall.
As luck would have it, Miss O'Gara came out of her room and headed for the
bath. When she saw me her eyes performed a quick up and down as her hand
covered her mouth but not before she gasped again, "Sorry." She
quickly turned back to her room.
I stopped, pointed my finger at her "....and don't let it happen

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • She said "Sorry" - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 24 2004 @ 03:49 PM EDT
Link to Slashdot post AND READER COMMENTS
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 24 2004 @ 02:01 AM EDT

Slashdot readers call the author a TROLL and point to Groklaw for facts about
the case.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Ms. O'Gara trying to prove her worth?
Authored by: rao on Sunday, October 24 2004 @ 02:58 AM EDT

This looks like the desperate attempt of someone who is feeling insecure. The prosco web site will be on-line soon and then what will Maureen O'Gara's purpose in life be? She will be about as useful as a typewriter repair man. I think this is her way of showing SCO that she still has some value to them. :)

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • can she be sued? - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 24 2004 @ 07:10 AM EDT
A Bit of the Blarney -- or Worse? -- About "Lost" Code
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 24 2004 @ 03:10 AM EDT
Always helps to know where an organization gets its money from in order to
understand its motivations and loyalties...

Linuxworld has long been ostracized and ignored by many of us who know it to be
what it is - a FUD site strategically placed ;).

So much darkness, so many rocks, so little time to shine a light...

[ Reply to This | # ]

A Bit of the Blarney -- or Worse? -- About "Lost" Code
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 24 2004 @ 07:19 AM EDT
I just can't see IBM lying that they can't "find" AIX code for POWER,
since IBM just received OpenGroup certification for it.


Company Name: IBM Corporation

Product Name: AIX 5L for POWER V5.2 dated 8-2004 or later with APARs:
IY59610, IY60869, IY61405 with VAC or later on pSeries CHRP systems

Registered on: 13-Oct-2004

Display a copy of the Brand Certificate in PDF

Search the Conformance Statements database for all UNIX 03 registrations

See all the registered products for the UNIX 03 Product Standard

See more information about the UNIX 03 Product Standard

Sounds like more lies from the ProSCO camp. Burn the witch burn.

[ Reply to This | # ]

A Bit of the Blarney -- or Worse? -- About "Lost" Code
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 24 2004 @ 08:41 AM EDT

Hold a moment here.

Doesn't Linus _own_ the Linux trademark now? This being the case, is there not
some form of direct action he could take, forcing anti-Linux websites from using
the word "Linux" in their name?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Stopped reading Linuxworld when busted astroturfing
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 24 2004 @ 08:52 AM EDT
I stopped reading Linuxworld about 3 1/2 years ago, when it was reported that one writer had a blowup and reportedly left, and other writers appeared to confirm that the editor (?) or whomever was in charge of the stories was astroturfing posts. iirc, one writer left, and possibly others, but the others basically confirmed what was going on, and the editor (?) allegedly didn't see any problem with what he was doing.

The astroturfing campaign that went on during the OS/2 wars (and which is documented in court testimony and other reports) by Microsoft was enough to open the eyes and sour the mouth. When I read Linuxworld 3 1/2-4 years ago, the site just didn't feel right. Something didn't add up, something else made me feel that it wasn't the site for me. The astroturfing expose was the clincher. Except for the Maureen story linked off slashdot, I haven't been there for about 3 1/2 years, except for a couple of times 3, 2 1/2, 2 years ago, to see if they changed, and if the site felt comfortable. It didn't, and still doesn't, even setting aside the Maureen story.

It's more than the design, but the design really bites anyway. It's idiotic the way they set up the front page and front of every story so that they can shove an ad down the reader's throat (which btw, I don't see thanks to custom hosts and blocking), but I see the empty white boxes, or our own ads served off our internal apache web server in some of the boxes due to how they set up their web site. But the big problem with Linuxworld is the stories themselves. written from a MSCE type of perspective, with a little snobbery, digs, and other little snide remarks cleverly disguised here and there.

And eweek should pay attention. Because eweek is sliding downhill slowly but surely. They are running stories simply to boost traffic. SVN takes the pro Linux side, various others take the pro proprietary side, and they hurl hand grenades at each other simply to boost traffic, nothing more. There is no real quality to the content when they are in pro/anti traffic boosting mode, its simply to rile up the readers on each side to boost the numbers. Watch them the next time they do it and decide for yourselves. It would be interesting to see if they increase the rate of pro/con attack stories, or schedule them to benefit their company when they appear during circulation audit periods or when a web metrics company is monitoring their traffic so they could stick it to their advertisers through higher rates.

[ Reply to This | # ]

A Bit of the Blarney -- or Worse? -- About "Lost" Code
Authored by: blacklight on Sunday, October 24 2004 @ 11:17 AM EDT
If Maureen O'Gara can report the way she does and still hold on to her day job,
eg. write about events as is she were an eyewitness when she was not even on the
premises, the problem with reporters not doing their job is a lot more systemic
than Steven Glass and Jason Blair.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Ok, so just where should I go for Linux news?
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 24 2004 @ 12:27 PM EDT
Not being a fanatical Linux news addict, it seems that it's not always easy at a
casual glance to tell which Linux sites are good and useful, and which are FUD
monsters in disguise. So in this thread, I hereby request from all and sundry
your opinions as to the best and the worst of the worst (and the mediocre of the
mediocre, for that matter) of Linux websites.

m(_ _)m

[ Reply to This | # ]

A Bit of the Blarney -- or Worse? -- About "Lost" Code
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 24 2004 @ 02:07 PM EDT
Could an attorney familar with liable and slander please explain to those of us
without the J.D. why Journalists, Editors and News companies have carte blanche
to report lies as fact and facts as lies without ever being held accountable?
Seems like someone dropped the ball when framing our legal system and left a
giant gaping hole in it for propaganda.

[ Reply to This | # ]

An interesting thing.....
Authored by: ThungurKnifur on Sunday, October 24 2004 @ 04:54 PM EDT
I wonder if it's a coincident that there is a Windows 2003 Server ad just where
O'Gara's 'story' starts.

"Make a name for yourself with Windows Server System"

Are Micro$oft really that desperate that they need to advertise on Pro-Linux
Or is it not actually Pro-Linux at all?


[ Reply to This | # ]

Official "The SCO Group" positions....9 Days and counting.
Authored by: Acrow Nimh on Sunday, October 24 2004 @ 06:02 PM EDT
Main posts in this thread may only be made by senior managers or attorneys for
"The SCO Group". Main posts must use the name and position of the
poster at "The SCO Group". Main posters must post in their official
capacity at "The SCO Group".

Sub-posts will also be allowed from non-"The SCO Group" employees or
attorneys. Sub-posts from persons not connected with "The SCO Group"
must be very polite, address other posters and the main poster with the
honorific "Mr." or "Mrs." or "Ms.", as
appropriate, use correct surnames, not call names or suggest or imply unethical
or illegal conduct by "The SCO Group" or its employees or attorneys.

This thread requires an extremely high standard of conduct and even slightly
marginal posts will be deleted.

P.J. says you must be on your very best behavior.

If you want to comment on this thread, please post under "O/T"

Supporting Open Sauce since 1947 ;¬)

[ Reply to This | # ]

My Tinfoil Must Be Slipping
Authored by: Walter Dnes on Sunday, October 24 2004 @ 06:16 PM EDT
I was around during IBM's ill-fated OS/2 campaign. I saw how dirty MS played
when it felt threatened. OS/2 software vendors were bought up, only to be shut
down. There was a publication called "OS/2 Magazine". It somehow got
renamed to "OS/2 and Windows Magazine". It eventually ended up as
"Windows Magazine".

Compared to a dozen years ago, there are a *LOT* more C programmers on the
planet, far too many for even Microsoft's billions to employ them all. And many
of them work in FOSS projects that can't be bought up and shut down.

Magazines, however, are still regular businesses, and follow old-fashioned
economics. I.e. bills have to be paid. Imagine that you're the owner of a
struggling magazine that covers FOSS. You've got a wife and a kid, and more on
the way. Some previously-unheard-of "management group" comes along
and offers to buy you out, cash on the barrel, for a ridiculously inflated price
that leaves you set for the rest of your life. How many people would walk away
from that type of offer? There's a lot that can be accomplished with sixty
billion dollars. This time, the magazines aren't even bothering to be up front
and change their names to disclose their editorial slant.

Like FOSS projects which don't follow the old rules, Groklaw is not there to be
bought out. This is probably giving MS fits. And even a malicious lawsuit
shutting down one site will simply spawn dozens of new ones all over the planet,
many of them outside the reach of American lawyers. This is what has MS

I wonder what MS' next ploy will be.

[ Reply to This | # ]

NOT Satire. O'Gara never said that
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 24 2004 @ 06:26 PM EDT
I've been reading this all over groklaw and slashdot. I went back to the site and took a look the article again. I don't see any comments
about it being satire. Am I missing something? Please provide a link if I am.
Otherwise, lets please stop with the misleading "satire" comments.

IF O'Gara did say that, then it's an obvious lie, IMO. I can find nothing in
that article that appears to be any sort of attempt at humor.

[ Reply to This | # ]

A Bit of the Blarney -- or Worse? -- About "Lost" Code
Authored by: Hop on Sunday, October 24 2004 @ 06:51 PM EDT
I found this in the sidebar beside the O'Gara article, titled "World's
Leading Linux Resources:"

Microsoft - Leading companies and third-party analysts confirm it. Windows has a
lower cost of ownership and outperforms Linux.

Not to mention there were several Microsoft ads displayed on their website (one
was being displayed in the block ad within the article). Does anyone else find
this odd for a linux website? I'll let you draw your own conclusions about

[ Reply to This | # ]

Slashdot article on this very thread - "Groklaw Refutes LinuxWorld Story About AIX Sources"
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 24 2004 @ 07:51 PM EDT
From Groklaw Refutes LinuxWorld Story About AIX Sources posted on Slashdot:
Posted by timothy on Sunday October 24, @07:44AM
from the truth-will-out dept.
rimberg writes "Maureen O'Gara printed a story about what allegedly was said in the last court hearing between IBM and SCO. Groklaw had eyewitnesses at the hearing. None of them reports seeing Ms. O'Gara there. Furthermore, none of them heard any of what she 'reports' about IBM supposedly claiming not to be able to find code. Let me repeat that. IBM never said anything like that, according to groklaw eyewitnesses."

It's only fair, considering their previous article.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Follow the money. Who owns Mareen O'Gara?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 25 2004 @ 12:19 AM EDT
Linuxgram is owned by syscon

Linuxworld is owned by syscon

So reading this link means that Mareen O'Gara IS Linuxgram, which IS G2 Computer Intelligence, Inc, which IS Linux Business week. And Mareen works for SYSCON. The really hillarious thing is that typing into the browswer takes you to linuxworld.

Nowhere does it ever state that linuxworld is quoting another author that works for the same company when articles in linuxworld quote articles in Linuxgram. In fact using a bizzare series of cut outs they make the companies appear to be different companies entirely. This is a blatent lie, dishonest, disrespectful to the reader, and against all standards of ethical conduct for any author.

Now, what are Mareens linux credentials? Has she ever contributed to any projects? No. Has she ever lead any teams that developed Linux solutions? No. Has she ever created a hardware device or a software product? No.

What has she done? From the first link:

O'Gara's resume is impressive prior to founding Sea Cliff, Long Island-based, G2 Computer Intelligence, but it's more impressive since. She was the founding editor on CMP's Computer Systems News and blazed the CMP trail to the West Coast, where she was bureau chief; then on to Europe, where she was Computer Systems News's first European correspondent. She has been a contributing editor to UNIX Today, Datamation, Mini-Micro News, and Computergram as well as the international editor of Computer Marketing. Since launching Unigram.X in the U.S., she has stalked the aisles of Uniforum with a vengeance, leaving a trail of shaking, sweating VPs of many a UNIX supplier. She also haunts the corridors of the Microsoft powerbase and gives her newsletters some of their sharp edge. Famous for her confrontational style in press conferences she is single-handedly the reason why most companies in the sector have abandoned having press conferences.

So evidently she has absolutely no credentials to be reporting on either Linux or Open Source software in general.

Also from the first link:

"Maureen O'Gara's LinuxGram will be one of the most effective advertising and marketing vehicles for the Linux industry," said Carmen Gonzalez, executive vice president of advertising sales for SYS-CON Media. "We will offer a limited number of sponsorship opportunities at "Maureen O'Gara's LinuxGram" and sponsorship opportunities for the newsletter will be extended by invitation only."

But I am looking on the linuxgram web site and I don't see any ads being sold there. Evidently the content in the articles is for sale to the highest bidder.

SCO is obviously a sponsor. There it is put out as boldly as it can be, Linuxgram is an advertising and marketing vehical. It isn't a news source at all.

[ Reply to This | # ]

A Bit of the Blarney -- or Worse? -- About "Lost" Code
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 25 2004 @ 03:28 PM EDT
Doesn't matter what she said or wrote. SCOX stock at 2.98 and falling.

[ Reply to This | # ]

A Bit of the Blarney -- or Worse? -- About "Lost" Code
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 25 2004 @ 05:51 PM EDT
I find the story disturbing for one reason alone. The statement "Can't find
it" is all she wrote. Not "I can't find the code they are refering
to" or anything like that. Just a sound bite "Can't find it".
What is "it"? Code? Papers? Documents? The email being flashed around?
It just says "can't find it". Does anyone really know what they can't
find? There is no context to the statement except the article implies that they
can't find the code. It implies that this is refering to the subject being
presented. What was the question they were answering? That was never stated;
only implied.

Of course, without the actual transcript, who will ever know.

[ Reply to This | # ]

LinuxWorld denies association with O'Gara
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 25 2004 @ 09:34 PM EDT

[ Reply to This | # ]

From the Editors of LinuxWorld Magazine
Authored by: SilverWave on Monday, October 25 2004 @ 10:23 PM EDT

For everyone with Hide Anonymous turned on

"Therefore we at (the Web site) and LinuxWorld Magazine (the print magazine), would like to make it clear that we do not approve, contract, or employ Maureen O'Gara. We have no association with Maureen O'Gara of any kind. This obviously means that we are unable to approve or veto any of the stories that Maureen O'Gara has written, irrespective of their source."

Sorry if the multiple postings annoy.. this was too good to keep :-P

Linux used ideas from MINIX
In science, all work is based on what came before it.
Andy Tanenbaum, 6June04

[ Reply to This | # ]

innocent question
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 02:04 PM EDT
I'm not trolling, really. I just want to know why, if this transcript is
sealed, PJ (or O'Gara, for that matter) is allowed to report what IBM did and
didn't say.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )