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
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

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

Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal

User Functions



Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

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.

Where'd They Get That? - Part One
Saturday, April 07 2007 @ 01:26 PM EDT

Journalists around the world were no doubt startled to read in SCO's latest filing in the SCO v. IBM litigation that if a party in a case sends an early copy of a filing to a journalist, it is proof the two are working in collusion. Methinks there would be many coopted journalists by that logic, since it is not unusual for parties in litigation to send out significant filings, and SCO did it many times.

In fact, SCO not only regularly sent its filings early to journalists, it set up an entire website,, to display them all. In fact, when it first filed its complaint, the original one in state court, it posted it on its website, before it was filed, if I recall correctly, or at least before it was otherwise publicly available, and it was a copy that had and has no court filestamp. And SCO gave many public statements to journalists, who I'm sure are now wondering if they will be seen as SCO shills, if SCO's silly logic is believed.

I thought it would be fun to begin a new series, "Where'd They Get That"? in which I will carefully chronicle some obvious instances where SCO appears to have fed thoughts and documents to the press, starting with the year SCO chose, 2004. It stars, as you would expect, Maureen O'Gara and Daniel Lyons, Exhibit A and Exhibit B, but others will make cameos. Let's apply SCO's standard of evidence of collusion, and I think you will have to agree at the end of the series, that the dank smell of cynical phoniness is in the air. So, here we go. And do feel free to send me any examples you recall. And now, a little hypocrisy music, maestro, please.

We'll begin with one example of all the times that we know about when it appears SCO provided journalists with insider information. Let's start with a famous event, the Maureen O'Gara reportage on a court hearing she didn't attend, yet magically was able to report on both the contents of a sealed SCO filing *and* what was shown by SCO's lawyers on a projection screen only Magistrate Judge Brooke Wells and the lawyers were supposed to see.

Now *that's* reporting on a mystical scale. I know. It's a miracle! No, my friends. It's evidence that SCO likely fed her that information. Who else could or would have?

Here we go, then, our first stop on our magical mystery tour. Screenshots, please!

This first O'Gara article is still available on Wayback. It originally appeared on October 22, 2004. I took screenshots for you, first the title, showing the byline and the date of the article and the second where Ms. O'Gara amazes us all with her powers:

So that is the date and the proof that it is Maureen O'Gara's article, and here is one snip of what she reported:

Is that not a wonder? She tells us what is in a sealed document, that it is about some privileged IBM email. Privileged means that the public isn't supposed to learn about it. So does sealed. If you go to the court, they are not supposed to give you that info, so the logical source would be one of the parties. I think we may safely assume it wasn't IBM, and it would be improper for SCO to release it.

How did she know, then, that there is "supposedly no hint of attorney-client privilege" to the email? That was SCO's claim. How did she know that the Third Amended Complaint (this is the one SCO was eventually not allowed to file) was about SCO alleging that IBM had improperly put SVR4 code in AIX for Power? And how did she know the contents of an email that SCO lawyers just "happened to read out loud" (love that part) in court at an earlier hearing, when that transcript was sealed by the court because SCO's lawyers improperly, or by mistake ha ha, read that email aloud, and when O'Gara was not at the hearing? Somebody had to fill her in. It wasn't Jiminy Cricket.

And how did the gifted O'Gara know what was shown on that screen? She didn't attend that hearing either. Even if she had, she could not have seen what was on that screen, because it was set up to exclude the public. We know she wasn't there, because our reporters were, and I also know it from a conversation I had back then with the publisher of Sys.con. I also asked Salt Lake Tribune reporter Bob Mims, who did attend. She definitely was not there.

In fairness, she might have learned the contents of the proposed and sealed Third Amended Complaint from that other artiste of prediction or divination or, by SCOlogic SCO media-spin partner, Daniel Lyons of Forbes, but I am getting ahead of myself. But what about the rest? Who told her these things? I am sure it wasn't IBM. It obviously wasn't the judge. Could it be SCO who leaked these juicy bits to the media???? And yet it faults IBM for allegedly sending out *public* documents to journalists, documents they could get from the court anyway?

Isn't this fun? Educational too. In our next in this series, Mr. Lyons stars, the journalist who knew before I did and without any Pacer notation at all that SCO was allegedly trying to subpoena me. How does he do it? I'm sure it couldn't be IBM that told him that. No one but SCO could know about an unserved subpoena.

What?!! SCO is talking to the press? Giving them insider info? After Judge Wells wanted the parties to be more restrained? Could it be such goings on are actually happening in Utah? I'm shocked, shocked, I tell you, to learn of this beautiful friendship. And by the way, did Miss O'Gara's reportage sound to you just a teeeny weeeeeny bit biased? Even in such a short clip? That is not possible, since SCO said it is not acceptable for a journalist to have a point of view. Perhaps the problem is she has no gatekeeper to "monitor the reliability" of the contents, as SCO put it in the filing. Now that I think of it, neither does Lyons have a gatekeeper on his blog.... Maybe that's because it's a blog. Wait. Isn't Lyons the guy who said blogs were from the devil or something? Ewwwww. There's that smell again.

Uh oh. SCO needs to get on this problem of journalists having their own ideas and actually writing them for people to read this exact minute. But I suggest SCO apply its proposed media rules across the board. After all, we all know SCO is nothing if not the soul of fairness and balance.

Now, let me draw your attention to SCO's Exhibit 23, which SCO tries to use as one proof of collusion between IBM and me. Please note a detail SCO obviously missed. I wrote in the article which SCO used as an exhibit that I had read in about a new IBM filing that I didn't have but which I'd try to get it for us here at Groklaw:

I will have the actual documents available shortly, but is reporting that IBM is seeking a declaratory judgement.

What does that prove? The fact that had it first shows you that I wasn't a favored journalist by any means, if they had it before I did. After reading about the filing, I obviously contacted IBM or the journalist or both or a volunteer, for that matter, and was able to get the document. I don't recall which, because I didn't keep track of such picayune details. I've tried to reconstruct but I can't find anything, so if you remember anything, let me know. Not that it matters, but I like to answer all of SCO's FUD that we can.

But the most important point is that I didn't get it first. SCO is just not good with details. But let me state forcefully that there would be nothing wrong with IBM sending out copies of important filings or filling requests for them. These are public documents, after all. On a few occasions, it may have done so in the early days, but certainly not often and not typically. I usually got overlooked, though. I do remember complaining at least twice to their PR guys, because I just couldn't seem to get on the list for press releases or anything at all. I arranged with a fellow journalist to send me whatever documents he received from SCO and IBM and Novell, and Groklaw set up the system of volunteers going to the court to pick up filings in person and then digitizing them for us.

But journalists do contact parties to litigation. Of course they try to get the filings, the sooner the better, so they can scoop their competition, and of course they write about what they see in legal filings. That is what journalists do. There could be collusion in some cases, but sending out a filing isn't evidence of it. It's just journalists doing their jobs. And let's be honest. It was SCO, not IBM, trying to sky-write its message across the country and the world.

Do I think what SCO apparently did with O'Gara was improper? Personally, I do. But if SCO had merely sent her a filing that was a public document anyway, which in fact SCO did many, many times, so she and other journalists would have time to write about it sensibly, that is everyday journalism.

Those of you who have been here throughout the story will recall that in fact the court upheld the confidentiality of those emails, O'Gara's snarky innuendo otherwise notwithstanding. So to me it was improper to reveal anything about confidential materials. I think it is wrong to leak information regarding a *sealed* document, not a publicly available one, and information about what was said in a *sealed* hearing and information about emails designated by a party as confidential and improperly read aloud, something the judge told them not to do. As a matter of fact, Groklaw's reporters were at the hearing where SCO lawyers just happened to "goof" and read that confidential email aloud. They actually tried twice, but the judge cut them off. I knew then and I know now what the email contains, but I refused to report it, even before we learned the hearing transcript was ordered sealed, because I knew it was improper. If a court filing is sealed or marked confidential, that's how I treat it, out of respect for the court and the law. Yet here it was, being reported in the press by others, not entirely accurately in my opinion, either.

So, the question is, where'd she get that?

She wasn't the only one. Take at look at this coverage of the hearing, reported by Internet News' Jim Wagner:

The copyright-themed trial between SCO Group (Quote) and IBM (Quote) took another twist as the presiding judge ordered both sides to provide information previously considered privileged,SCO officials said Tuesday....According to a SCO official, SCO's lawyers argued that the two hadn't handed over the documents originally sought regarding IBM's Linux activities. The lawsuit's origins are part of SCO's claim that IBM broke a contract by improperly including SCO's Unix intellectual property in AIX, which is IBM's own version of Unix....

"One of the things IBM mentioned in its arguments was that it handed over everything that was not privileged and what was privileged, they didn't share," said Blake Stowell, SCO spokesperson. ...IBM officials were not available for comment at press time....SCO filed an amended complaint against IBM for the third time on Oct. 14. Though the filing is under seal, or not for public viewing, an observer in the court said some of the filing's claims were discussed in Tuesday's public hearing.

The amended complaint refers to Project Monterey, a joint project between IBM, SCO and Sequent to build a 64-bit Unix-based operating system, the observer said.

IBM reportedly scrapped the project in May 2001, but not before SCO shared "valuable information and trade secrets with respect to architecture, schematics and design of UnixWare and the Unix Software Code for Intel-based processors" with IBM engineers. The original filing from March 2003 maintains IBM had no experience running Unix on an Intel chip before partnering with SCO.

"SCO's alleging that IBM, during its work on Project Monterey, allegedly took some SVR 4 code, that was only intended for Project Monterey in order to help create this operating system for the 64-bit Itanium processor, and took that code and put it into AIX for PowerPC," an observer at the trial said.

As you can see, this reporter was fed a great deal of information about the contents of a sealed filing and the hearing about it, even apparently quoting from the document. Part of what he was fed came from Stowell, and the rest from "an observer" in the courtroom who mystically, if it were not a SCO person, knew the contents of the sealed document. Of course, in the end, all the allegations reported so faithfully here bit the dust because SCO's motion was denied.

Now, this reporter isn't a front for SCO. We might have a discussion about O'Gara and Lyons, but I don't believe for a second that Jim was in any way trying to be used. He was just reporting what he had, and IBM, you'll notice, wasn't telling him anything, which was typical. Nor did he quote at all from Groklaw, despite our voluminous coverage about the facts underlying this motion and how stupid it all was, and time proved that our coverage was more accurate than Jim's. But that's because Groklaw doesn't rely on anything but our own independent research. We've found it to be the most reliable source.

... to be continued...


Where'd They Get That? - Part One | 323 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Authored by: snorpus on Saturday, April 07 2007 @ 01:37 PM EDT
Should the need arise.

73/88 de KQ3T ---
Montani Semper Liberi
Comments Licensed:

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: snorpus on Saturday, April 07 2007 @ 01:38 PM EDT
Please use clicky links.

73/88 de KQ3T ---
Montani Semper Liberi
Comments Licensed:

[ Reply to This | # ]

Where'd They Get That? - Part One
Authored by: grayhawk on Saturday, April 07 2007 @ 01:47 PM EDT
First, I would like to wish everyone a very Happy Easter.

SCO has a terrible habit of painting people with the same black brush with which
they themselves are painted. They seem to judge everyone by their low standards
and can't believe anyone would choose the moral high ground while they
consistently wallow in their own morasse. As we can see what goes around comes
around and they once again got caught with their paws in the cookie jar. Should
happen more often me thinks.

It is said when the power of love overcomes the love of power, that it is then
and only then that we shall truly have peace!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Where'd They Get That? - Part One
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 07 2007 @ 01:51 PM EDT
Standard practice for someone who ignores the rules. Accuse the other side of
what you are doing so that when you get caught "well the other side were
doing it to".

Also typical SCO stuff on the document comparison. They did not do md5sum on the
pacer document vs the groklaw document. Typical SCO court proceedings, accuse
first and fight the facts that don't fit later.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Facts... - Authored by: Mikkel on Saturday, April 07 2007 @ 03:38 PM EDT
    • Facts... - Authored by: Ian Al on Sunday, April 08 2007 @ 04:43 AM EDT
Where'd They Get That? - Part One
Authored by: grubber on Saturday, April 07 2007 @ 02:00 PM EDT
I was curious when I read those lines in the SCO filing... I guess my question
is: How did you get those filings that SCO contends you got directly from IBM?

I personally dont care if IBM did send them to you, as there's nothing wrong
with that. But, it was an intersting assertion.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Where'd They Get That? - Part One
Authored by: JamesK on Saturday, April 07 2007 @ 02:19 PM EDT
"I thought it would be fun to begin a new series, "Where'd They Get
That"? in which I will carefully chronicle some obvious instances where SCO
appears to have fed thoughts and documents to the press, starting with the year
SCO chose, 2004. It stars, as you would expect, Maureen O'Gara and Daniel Lyons,
Exhibit A and Exhibit B, but others will make cameos."

IBM had better come up with some more servers for ibiblio, to handle the load!

Junk is stuff you throw away. Stuff is junk you keep.

[ Reply to This | # ]

A possible answer?
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 07 2007 @ 02:54 PM EDT
Where do they get all those unserved subpoenas,
and sealed documents for disbursal to journalists?

Why, from Mr Blepp's briefcase, of course.

Orietur vobis timentibus Deum Sol Justitiae

[ Reply to This | # ]

Dan Lyons Blog and the dissapearing comments
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 07 2007 @ 03:10 PM EDT
It is interesting to note that Mr. Lyons isn't much of a moderator. To see what
is meant by this, all that needs to be done is to tell it like it is on his blog
and wait a bit. What you will see is that telling the truth on his blog will
only get your comments deleted.

It takes a certain type of character to deal with SCO and Mr. Lyons fits mold

[ Reply to This | # ] kettle...
Authored by: gjleger on Saturday, April 07 2007 @ 03:13 PM EDT

Stick it to them PJ !

I want to see part 2 !

[ Reply to This | # ]

Where'd They Get That? - Part One
Authored by: B1ff! on Saturday, April 07 2007 @ 03:20 PM EDT

I thought that Groklaw's policy was not to feed the Troll.

You and Groklaw are being trolled by Mr Boise and partners! Yet you wasted 3
articles and 2,000 replies on them. They have gotten you off onto an irrelevant
and non-productive tangent. Thus wasting your energy.

Love always

[ Reply to This | # ]

The pipeline between SCO and certain "journalist" works both ways
Authored by: Kosh Nanarek on Saturday, April 07 2007 @ 03:30 PM EDT
Remember when, during one of the quarterly conference calls, that Darl was
making all sorts of veiled innuendo about PJ's "real" identity? He
hinted that PJ
was not who she claimed to be and that we would all soon know more about her
and her relationship to IBM. All this transpired just prior to MOG's disgusting

article that supposedly exposed PJ. It's an interesting coincidence, if you
in coincidences.

"And so, it begins."

[ Reply to This | # ]

Where'd They Get That? - Part One
Authored by: Mikkel on Saturday, April 07 2007 @ 03:34 PM EDT
Why do I get the feeling that they will regret starting this? I think someone
miscalculated the consequences when they decided to attack PJ this way.

Old age and treachery ALWAYS beats Youth and enthusiasm!

[ Reply to This | # ]

No File Stamp
Authored by: Steve Martin on Saturday, April 07 2007 @ 04:03 PM EDT

In fact, when it first filed its complaint, the original one in state court, it posted it on its website, before it was filed, if I recall correctly, or at least before it was otherwise publicly available, and it was a copy that had and has no court filestamp.

Hey, PJ... I have TSG's latest filing in TSG v IBM here (docket number 1022, TSG's Corrected Memorandum in Support of its Motion to Deem a Prospective Third-Party Deposition yada yada), downloaded hot off PACER, and guess what? It is not date-stamped either! Neither electronically, nor manually.

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

[ Reply to This | # ]

Where'd They Get That? - Part One
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 07 2007 @ 04:16 PM EDT
Okay, let me get this straight, SCO's attorneys claim PJ is connected to IBM
through the scholastic servers hosting Groklaw, and IBM's financial
contributions to academic institutions, including UNC?
Here's my questions; does anybody else get an uneasy feeling to know that the
lead attorney in the Micro$oft Antitrust trial, who was supposed to be
vigorously representing the interests of the American public and the United
States, now owns a big piece of a company that owes it's existence to financial
support it receives from Micro$oft?
I mean, seriously, think about it...The M$ trial ended in 2001, SCO files
against IBM in 2003. Now Boies, Schiller, & Flexner LLP own a major chunk of
SCO for ongoing legal service at no additional cost to SCO?
Why do I get the feeling SCO/M$ hatched this linux escapade before the M$ trial
ended in 2001? Was Boies aware of the whole hatching of the litigation idea
If SCO wants to draw assumptions, based on chains of events and who funds what,
then we need to go back and take a real hard, serious look at Mr. Boies and his
association with M$ from the antitrust trial period up to now.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The cold hard light of truth ...
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 07 2007 @ 04:17 PM EDT
OOh, nice one :)

The trouble is that, eventually, the truth will ALWAYS get out ... as much as
SCO try to hide it, and bend it, it always gets out.

Go get 'em girl. I get the distinct impression that the gloves are now off. Up
to now, well, its just been reporting mainly. Sure, reproting with a slant. An
angle, but ... its been a documentation of events rather than involvement.

Now? This article is different. I get the distinct impression that they've got
to you, that they've pinched just a little too hard.

Yammamoto, the Japanese admiral said [1]:

"I fear all we have done is to waken a sleeping giant and fill him with a
terrible resolve."

Thats the impression I get now. Up until now, SCO have been reported on, and
now? Now you are out to get them. Good for you, stick it to them. You will win,
because you have truth on your side!

[1] well, he didn;t actually say it, but history is written by the victors, and
its a good story anyway. :)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Absolutely True
Authored by: Smalltalk80 on Saturday, April 07 2007 @ 04:37 PM EDT

PJ wrote: 'But journalists do contact parties to litigation.'

My partner is Federal Public Defender and have been litigating for over 30
Every time she has a high-profile case, she is inundated with calls from the
press. This is normal.

Joseph Bacanskas [|]
--- I use Smalltalk. My amp goes to eleven.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Another odd ode
Authored by: cricketjeff on Saturday, April 07 2007 @ 04:52 PM EDT
As usual you can look at the original here but since this is inspired purely by PJ's article I'll post it here as well.

Sco’s gone running to the court!
“It’s copyright infringement.
IBM may have done what they didn’t ought.
On our IP that’s impingement”

“We thought of telling folks about
The documents we’re using
So there can be no single doubt
That IBM are abusing”

“We fed our allies juicy lies
Til’ the court told us to cease
So our opponents must realise
They can’t make a press release”

“It doesn’t matter that the files
Were already at the court
Neatly arranged in tidy piles
For journalists to report”

“No journalist should be allowed
A single stroke of bias
Unless of course their slanted view
Has been carefully written by us.”

“Some people with audacity
Have restricted their reporting
To spreading truth and sanity
Without careful SCO-sanctioned sorting”

“No court of justice in our land
Can possibly permit
A journalistic hand
To get away with it.”

“So we humbly beg this court
To ignore inconvenient facts
And punish all who would report
On our illicit acts!”

“The first thing that this court must stop
Or else we will appeal
Is to make the folks at Groklaw pop
And make nasty PJ squeal”

“So lets pretend that what she gets
Isn’t public under law
And let us hope the court forgets
That we did worse things well before”

“We can herein truthfully tell the court
No journalist was helped by us
The only people we asked to report
Were shills who’d pump our fuss!”

Copyright details on my site but freely available to PJ and quotable, with attribution or link to poem on my site please, in whole or part by anyone else with reference to this case.

[ Reply to This | # ]

All I can say is this...
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 07 2007 @ 04:57 PM EDT
... from reading, and sometimes posting to, this site almost every day for at
least the past three years...

God Bless you PJ

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 07 2007 @ 05:08 PM EDT
It's nice to see you standing up to SCO's allegations by using the one thing
they fear the most - the truth. I'd like to see their officers held accountable
for the actions they're undertaking one of these days.


[ Reply to This | # ]

"IBM had no experience running Unix on an Intel chip before partnering with SCO"
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 07 2007 @ 05:16 PM EDT
Another mistruth by SCO. IBM announced Unix on Intel for the IBM XT and AT
under the name PC/IX in January of 1984. Tannenbaum used it as the development
system for Minix. The actual porting work was done by Interactive Systems Corp.
which was the first commercial Unix vendor. They did quite a few ports of Unix
to various platforms. IIRC they were the first to offer Unix System V on the

Sun later bought the rights to ISC's Unix on Intel from Kodak. Sun had used the
Interactive product as the basis for the Sun 386i which was my introduction to
Unix and a source of great personal confusion since it was *not* BSD based as
all of Sun's other systems were.


[ Reply to This | # ]

Where'd They Get That? - Part One
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 07 2007 @ 05:19 PM EDT
My, but SCO made a <i>huge</i> mistake in trying to intimidate PJ
and Groklaw. Not only have the failed to silence such a vocal critic, but
they've motivated her to go on the offensive, point out past improper conduct by
SCO that might otherwise have been ignored. This can't possibly end well for

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: DodgeRules on Saturday, April 07 2007 @ 05:33 PM EDT
PJ, you left me hanging, and on Easter eve! This is like watching a TV show that suddenly says "To be continued..."! I just hope this wasn't a season-ending cliff-hanger and the next scheduled episode will be on soon. Of course, take the rest of the weekend off and enjoy Easter.

Happy Easter, PJ!

[ Reply to This | # ]

You decide to flame SCO?
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 07 2007 @ 05:39 PM EDT
The basic issue appears from SCO appears to be that IBM paid and supplied
information to groklaw to publicly harm SCO. While the filings and the court
hearings haven't done much to help SCO, looking back Groklaw positioned itself
as anti-SCO with flamage or deletion of any post that may help or support SCO.

Instead of answering the allegations, Groklaw responds eith a "they did it
too" story. Two wrongs don't make a right and flaming the allegations
instead of answering them isn't helping Groklaw. For instance, has anyone
checked to see if SCO did try to serve Pamela Jones, but were unable to find her
as stated in their filing. Afterall, SCO isn't the only ones who have tried to
find her and failed.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Their Biggest Mistake?
Authored by: trevorteusc on Saturday, April 07 2007 @ 06:22 PM EDT

I have from beginning agreed with PJ's comments and the vast majority of comments posted on Groklaw over the past few years. I have been appalled by the actions and claims that SCO has made during that time. Every time I think that they couldn't stoop any lower, they have proven me wrong by stooping even lower. When I first read about this latest move by SCO, all I felt was anger for two days that anyone, even SCO, could attack an individual in such a way, even though it probably doesn't change their standing in this lawsuit one bit. When I first read PJ's article this morning I cheered, because I think that not only are PJ's comments justified, but well-deserved by SCO.

I believe that PJ is a true pioneer in many ways for creating Groklaw. I have been an avid reader of Groklaw almost since the beginning, even though I haven't comment very often or helped in others ways. I am neither a lawyer, nor a programmer, and I don't have a lot of time to do transcriptions, but rarely does a day go by without me reading Groklaw. That is because I have been amazed and fascinated with what Groklaw has been able to accomplish. PJ created an enormous community of lawyers, programmers, engineers, end-users, etc. that all have some sort of interest or connection to Linux and/or other Free/Open Source software, and PJ, along with the rest of the Groklaw community have a strong interest in following this lawsuit and learning the truth of what is behind everything that is a part of it. For that, I have always thought that PJ should be proud of her creation. I also believe that years from now, long after SCO has ceased to exist, PJ and Groklaw will still be remembered in history as an organization that has had a tremendous impact on Free/Open Source software, because of its impact on this case.

Now, because of SCO's latest actions, I think that PJ and Groklaw's place in history will even be stronger. SCO has found a way to possibly drag PJ into the lawsuit itself. I think their intent was to intimidate her into discontinuing the site. Either that, or they they did it just out of spite. Either way, however, I don't think they thought this through very well. Although PJ created Groklaw, and she writes most of the articles herself, she isn't the only person involved in Groklaw. PJ has, on many occasions, commented that the success of Groklaw has been because of all of the contributions of the entire community. PJ deserves a lot of credit for creating the community, but the community deserves a lot of credit for supporting her effort. If SCO manages to draw PJ into the lawsuit itself, it will be like grabbing the tiger by the tail, because the whole community will be right there with her. In the past, Groklaw has only commented on the facts of the case and made speculations on the outcome, but now the Groklaw community might just have to prepare to actually face down SCO. I know I would not want to be on the other side of the Groklaw community. That is why I think this might prove to be SCO's biggest mistake, yet.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Relies on IBM-donated Servers to Provide Support for OpenServer/UnixWare Customers
Authored by: sk43 on Saturday, April 07 2007 @ 06:30 PM EDT
The file
contains binary copies of Linux libraries needed by SCO's OpenServer and
UnixWare customers when running the "lxrun" emulator, which allows
Linux binaries to be run unchanged on SCO's operating systems. The
ftp site does not provide source code directly, but rather directs SCO
customers to a website to obtain the code:

"These archives contain pre-packaged Linux libraries for use with
lxrun. Source code for these libraries is available from the
sunsite Linux archive and its mirrors:"

In case people are not aware, "" is now called

Another file also directs SCO customeres to sunsite:

"Q0.1: How can I get started using lxrun!"

"A: Follow these steps:"
"1. Copy a Linux binary to the /usr/local/linux/bin directory
If you don't have a Linux system at hand, use one of the
mirrors at
to download an app off the net."

We thus have the interesting situation that both and
rely on the services of the same IBM-donated servers at

[ Reply to This | # ]

Round one!
Authored by: driftwolf on Saturday, April 07 2007 @ 07:05 PM EDT
SCO takes an early couple of cheap shots below the belt, but PJ comes back with
a nice one-two combination of facts and research to slam the hole shut and put
SCO on the ropes. Yes folks, this fight isn't going to be pretty, but the
favourite, PJ, shouldn't have much to worry about other than the high costs of
having to assemble her own corner team.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Where'd They Get That? - Part One
Authored by: PTrenholme on Saturday, April 07 2007 @ 07:42 PM EDT

PJ, those quotes from “an observer in the court” could be accurate. If I recall correctly, GL has posted several transcripts of hearings where confidential material has been discussed. Recently, there was a hearing where the Judge’s attention was directed to specific “tabs” where the (confidential) contents was described in general terms.

So, for example, reporting that the “offending code” was “highlighted in red” on the screen would not require that the reporter actually see the screen, only that the lawyer presenting the motion state that the code as so displayed.

Many of the other statements you quote could, plausibly, have a similar genesis. So the authors you’re castigating may be guilty of no more than attributing truth to statements made by BSF lawyers in a court hearing.

I suppose it may be too utopian to expect all reporters to carefully distinguish between opinions and facts in what they write, but you, at least, seem to have done much to demonstrate that it’s not an impossible task.

Keep up the good work, and, please, don’t let them get you angry. It can distort your judgment.

IANAL, just a retired statistician

[ Reply to This | # ]

Where'd You Get That,,PJ?
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 07 2007 @ 08:03 PM EDT
Where did Maureen O'Gara disclose what is in the e-mail which IBM claimed to be
privileged and which SCOX read out loud at a hearing?

Or is that not what you wanted to say, PJ?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Could SCO be forced to post a bond?
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 07 2007 @ 09:11 PM EDT
Suppose that SCO were able to subpoena PJ. Presumably PJ could eventually prove
that they did it in bad faith and have them pay her legal bills. The trouble is
that SCO will be bankrupt before PJ has a chance to collect. So the question
is, could SCO be made to post a bond against the likelyhood that they would be
forced to pay PJ's legal bills?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Where'd They Get That? - Part One
Authored by: icephoto on Sunday, April 08 2007 @ 01:23 AM EDT
I just posted this over at Mr. Lyon's blog. I don't expect it to make it on so
I'll post it here, too. It was in reply to the topic "Don't Shoot The
Messenger". Hopefully it's not too rambling for shortly after midnight.


I find the topic of your entry also deliciously ironic as this is what The SCO
Group is attempting to do with Ms. Jones.

First some perspective. I do not bleed penguin blood. I use Windows
exclusively at home and a mix of things at work at the request of my employer
(with no input from me). I do not wear a tin foil hat nor do I drink *nix
Kool-Aid™. I do not own nor have I owned stock in any of the organizations
involved, except possibly in a broad-based mutual fund. I was turned on to his
whole legal battle through somebody who probably does both of the above and I've
been watching this strictly from an intellectual perspective even though I
stopped working with the guy about 4 years ago.

Strictly from a point of view of service of a subpoena...there's been no notice
of filing that I've seen in any of the legal databases that says that The SCO
Group had previously competently filed a subpoena for Ms. Jones. Granted that
this is an organization (The SCO Group) that has had their own issues with
trying to file things properly in the first place or in a timely manner, but
that is water under the bridge.

Assuming that they (The SCO Group) indeed have a lawful and binding subpoena,
there is no obligation for the “to be served” to hunt down the person doing the
serving. To hear out in the media, blogs, et al, that somebody is trying to
serve you is hearsay. Until the process server shows up at your doorstep, you
have not been served. The process server earns their fee by being able to find
the person to be served. It is possible that in the redacted sections of their
motion they provide more specificity to what they’ve done, but absent that we’re
left with nothing.

From everything that The SCO Group has presented in their filings, there’s no
solid proof that they have had a process server make eye-to-eye contact with her
or her lawyer and said, “You’ve been served.” More wind in sails for a crowd
that could have pushed the entire Spanish Armada across the Atlantic.

It is sadly all talk and no action—much like the bulk of The SCO Group’s Case.
After 4+ years and undoubtedly many hundreds of millions of dollars in legal
fees and stockholder losses (with a pending delisting coming soon to multiply
the effect), we’re down to talking about a few hundred lines of code that are of
questionable IP protectability and we can’t find a blogger. Not so much as an
inkling of a smoking gun or a stained dress.

This all leads to what the Linux community thought in the first place—this was
an attempt at a money grab or a buyout. It was a gambit that failed.

[ Reply to This | # ]

A certain aroma...
Authored by: mtew on Sunday, April 08 2007 @ 07:37 AM EDT
Unless you are into garbology or scatology, this could get very old very fast.
This topic has NOT quite reached that point but the potential for that happening
is higher than I like.

Most every Groklaw reader is aware that SCO puts out much more garbage than
other organizations of similar size. It is reasonable to display the stuff they
dumped on your turf recently as part of making your objections known.

Digging up all their old garbage that has mercifully been forgotten is not a
service I want performed as a public entertainment. I have seen more than
enough of their garbage to know its quality.

It would be useful to have this information handy to show to the judge.
However, even a judge expects a 'brief' that explains what is being presented
rather than being forced to wade through the enticer smelly me^Hass. A similar
amount of restraint might (or might not) be appropriate when posting articles on
this subject.

Of course how far to take this is your decision PJ. You have a fairly good
margin you can use to make your point more strongly, but there is an edge there
and I have seen you teeter on similar edges in the past. Most of this is
preaching to the choir and the hecklers can not be dissuaded, but there is still
a few passers by that you can either win over or drive off. I'd like to see
them join the choir but too shrill an aria will not do that.

As with all gratuitous advice, take this for what it is worth to you.


[ Reply to This | # ]

How PJ avoided service. (humor)
Authored by: Mikkel on Sunday, April 08 2007 @ 02:03 PM EDT

I can just picture SCO saying something like this.


Well, we don't actually have a subpoena. We tried to file one, but we could not find anyone that could actually do it correctly.


But even if we had one, we would not be able to server it. Pamela Jones is evading service. We told Mr. Lyons that we wanted to dispose her, and he posted it in his blog, but Pamela Jones never responded.

We sent her a note telling her we want to dispose her, and he reported that she is using a P.O. Box as her address.

  • She does not actually live in the P.O. Box.
  • She does not do business in the P.O. Box.
  • She did not answer when the server knocked on the P.O. Box door.
  • She did not answer when the server loudly called out her name.

The establishment where she has the P.O. Box was not helpful. The:

  • refused to be server on her behalf.
  • refused to put the note in her box unless it was in a stamped, properly address envelope.
  • wanted to charge for the envelope and stamp.
  • refused to address the envelope for the server.
  • refused to give out personal information about the box holder.

When our server started questioning people entering and leaving to see if they were Pamela Jones, or knew her, they asked out server to leave. When he refused, they call the police, who then escorted our server off the premises.

Old age and treachery ALWAYS beats Youth and enthusiasm!

[ Reply to This | # ]

The SCO Group's legal arguments = Division by zero
Authored by: Wesley_Parish on Monday, April 09 2007 @ 06:14 AM EDT

The SCO (Societie Commercial du Ondit - the Rumour-Monger's Company) Group always neglects to check their legal arguments for such division-by-zero assignments. Heaven help us if we ever get to see their "Unix" source code. No wonder it's available only under an NDA.

Another reason to peruse Linux's source code and contributors carefully - we can't have such lax thinking infiltrating the community's source code, can we? ;)

finagement: The Vampire's veins and Pacific torturers stretching back through his own season. Well, cutting like a child on one of these states of view, I duck

[ Reply to This | # ]

dank smell of cynical phoniness -- Where'd They Get That? - Part One
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 09 2007 @ 06:26 PM EDT

Aside from the fact you are the personal target in this latest round of SCO
machinations, the "dank smell of cynical phoniness" has been around on
this case for years. SCO had no more intent on settling this suit than fish
have of becoming austronauts. If they had a hint of sense,this thing would have
been dropped years ago!!!! You don't file suit against people claiming
copyright violations until after you have the copyrights in question legally
tied up.

It was a big big big OOPS on SCO's part and everything since then is pure

[ 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 )