Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Caldera Government Software The Courts Linux News

SCO Vs. IBM Leaks Exposed 89

Xenographic writes "Remember all the fuss about SCO subpoenaing PJ of Groklaw, where they allege that she's funded by IBM because she once got a publicly available document from a volunteer at the courthouse a little before it hit the Court's website? That's nothing. Groklaw has evidence that other materials have been leaked in this case — but they weren't leaked to Groklaw, and they weren't leaked by IBM. Information about the sealed materials in question made its way to Maureen O'Gara, who wrote a story based on inside information, displaying a positively uncanny insight into what SCO was planning, including far more than just the sealed document a SCO lawyer read out loud in open court. Interestingly, several witnesses report that Maureen O'Gara did not even attend that hearing, leaving us to speculate about her source."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

SCO Vs. IBM Leaks Exposed

Comments Filter:
  • IBM supports SCO (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 08, 2007 @09:07AM (#18654703) 21422994 []

    OK not really but you can make a case that SCO relies on ibiblio servers donated by IBM. Therefore SCO is supported by IBM just as much as Groklaw is. LOL
  • Anybody knows what [Laura] position is on this SCO vs IBM issue? I know she had strong views at the beginning.
    • Re: Didio - you left off the "t" at the end.
    • DiDio is highly pro-SCO, or was last I bothered to check. So unless someone can point me to where she's done a complete 180...
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 08, 2007 @09:21AM (#18654763)
    SCO wants to punish PJ because Groklaw has spoiled their FUD. They can't find her because she's very shy. They try to depose her because then they'll be able to get all her details. The problem is that they need some way to actually connect her to the court cases. So they concoct this story that PJ is a schill for IBM, IBM supports her and IBM feeds her information that should be secret.

    SCO's action is an obvious attempt to shut up PJ. [] It isn't precisely a SLAPP, but it's the same idea. The trouble for SCO is that, as the article shows, they have actually done that which they accuse IBM of doing. Talk about dirty hands. []
    • by aussie_a ( 778472 ) on Sunday April 08, 2007 @09:38AM (#18654817) Journal
      I was thinking "Jesus Christ! You put in a wikpeida link for anything [] and you get modded up." Only after visiting the link on a lark did I realise it was actually law related. Those who might be similarly disposed, take a look at the wikipedia links before judging ;)
    • by penix1 ( 722987 ) on Sunday April 08, 2007 @10:26AM (#18655025) Homepage
      It goes much deeper than that. SCO wants PJ's deposition to be taken in the Novell case and be used in the IBM case AFTER the time for depositions in the IBM case has expired. This is another attempt to get claims into the IBM case and waste more time there forcing IBM to answer yet another silly SCO memo. It is an end run around the IBM schedule as well as what you posted.

    • Re: (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      They try to depose her

      1) I thought dispostions were to be filed with the court (in some form) prior to them happening. When did they start to "try to depose her" according to court records?

      spoiled their FUD

      2) I don't think too much should be made of this, otherwise, the FUD continues by having everyone running around in circles and forgets what is really is at the heart of this case. Diversion, I think the word is.Look! there's Elvis
      3) Mr "Chair Throwing" Balmer from M$, is beginning to sound like SCO

    • Part of me thinks that they want to find out who she is so some guy with a middle name of "the" (Mikey the Knife, Jimmy the Nose, etc) can go "depose" her. I wouldn't put it past them... Darl carries a gun!
  • Well... (Score:4, Informative)

    by Checkmait ( 1062974 ) < minus city> on Sunday April 08, 2007 @09:27AM (#18654777)

    Since it was a sealed document that O'Gara spoke of, then it must have been either SCO or IBM which revealed it to her...

    But IBM isn't that dumb and has much more to lose than SCO by not following procedure. Oh, and did I mention that SCO was the one which attempted to read a sealed e-mail in open court? So I think SCO, in addition to all their FUD, is now on the breaking-rules path.

  • by WrongSizeGlass ( 838941 ) on Sunday April 08, 2007 @10:03AM (#18654915)
    With SCO's reputation being sh*t, pursuing bogus claims about Unix rights it doesn't even have, facing financial ruin, its officers potentially facing civil litigation for pissing away millions upon millions of shareholder's dollars on this crap, and a handful of other problems, I doubt they really care if they are labeled as hypocrites at this point. It's kind of like a murderer worrying about committing perjury - it can't get much worse once it's gone that far.
  • supoena O'Gara (Score:5, Interesting)

    by janneH ( 720747 ) on Sunday April 08, 2007 @10:08AM (#18654933)
    Maybe IBM should depose Maureen O'Gara? Find out where all that information came from...
    • I'd pay to see the MoGroll [] having to answer that in court ... but I don't think MogTrolls are capable of testifying, since history shows they can't tell the difference between truth and fiction.

      Add Daniel "Lying" Lyons, Bob Pretenderlie, Darl McBride and Gregory Blepp with his suitcase and the millions of lines of code ... and I can see the judge starting to hand out death penalties to witnesses.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      No, for the same reason that a subpoena for PJ's testamony would be quashed. Her testamony is not relivant to the case.

      If information under seal has been leaked illegally, it is the judges responsibility to deal with the transgression (and he has the horsepower to deal with it), not IBM or some third party.

      Leaked information is not IBM's direct concern, if IBM does not like it then they complain to the court and the court deals with it.

  • How long has this been going on? How many times has SCO amended or changed their claims completely? Even the judge commented at one point that they don't have any proof. And yet this continues. Is it normal in the US legal system to hold the parties in court indefinitely?
    • by jonadab ( 583620 )
      > Is it normal in the US legal system to hold the parties in court indefinitely?

      Only if the defense can afford to keep a fleet of lawyers on the case indefinitely, and even then only if they also determine that they'd rather do that than give in and settle. IBM can and has, but this is not universally the case. Some court battles do actually end.
    • by swillden ( 191260 ) * <> on Sunday April 08, 2007 @04:01PM (#18657325) Homepage Journal

      How long has this been going on? How many times has SCO amended or changed their claims completely? Even the judge commented at one point that they don't have any proof. And yet this continues. Is it normal in the US legal system to hold the parties in court indefinitely?

      Short answer: The court system is always slow, but this case is taking at least twice as long as it normally would, for various reasons that all boil down to SCO not wanting to get to trial.

      Long answer: It's not unusual for one of the parties in a court case to try to drag it out, so obviously it's the responsibility of the legal system to make sure that doesn't happen -- too much -- and the system is reasonably good at that. However, it's always the defendant who wants a long, drawn-out trial, in the hopes that by the time the court gets around to ruling the issue will have become moot. So, the legal system is designed to allow the plaintiff to drive the process forward, since the plaintiff is generally interested in getting a judgment ASAP.

      In this case, however, it's the plaintiff who has been dragging his heels since the first day, because SCO never really wanted to be in court anyway, because they know they can't win. IBM's ability to drive the case forward is somewhat limited because of their position as the defendant, and anyway they seem more interested in making sure that SCO is crushed into molecule-thin paste than rushing things. The judges appear to have recognized quite some time ago what's going on, and their actions have been mixed. On the one hand, they don't want this thing on their dockets any longer than necessary, so they've been trying to define and follow strict schedules. On the other hand, they definitely don't want this thing coming back to them, and SCO is obviously going to appeal if they lose, so they also have a motivation to take their time and make the case appeal-proof. The best way to do that is to allow SCO lots of latitude, and SCO is quite happy to use every opportunity to slow things down.

      Even worse, there are other cases involved here as well, including the Novell v SCO case, which is being heard by the same judges as SCO v IBM. Based on the various scheduling orders and when the judges finally decided to dig in their heels and refuse any more delays, SCO v IBM would be moving fast right now, probably just about ready to go in front of a jury, but the Novell v SCO case was filed last year. Since Novell v SCO will resolve many issues that apply to SCO v IBM, it makes sense to resolve them first. Not only that, but Novell's pushing hard for an early resolution (typical plaintiff behavior) because their claim is that SCO owes them lots of money and the more of it SCO spends fighting IBM, the less will be available to pay Novell. So, Judge Kimball made a decision that Novell v SCO should go first. Very sensible, except that Novell v SCO was just filed last year (or maybe late 2005?) and is still in heavy discovery. The discovery phase will be much shorter than SCO v IBM's was, largely because Novell is driving it hard, but it'll still take a year or so. In the meantime, SCO v IBM just has to wait.

      • In other words, the courts and IBM are giving SCO enough rope to hang themselves with and SCO keeps drawing the noose tighter.
        • In other words, the courts and IBM are giving SCO enough rope to hang themselves with and SCO keeps drawing the noose tighter.

          Yes, but very, very slowly.

    • by jd ( 1658 )
      It is perfectly normal for most of the civilized world to regard the US legal system as a cross between a Monty Python sketch and a Loony Tunes cartoon. This isn't, by any means, the longest-running court case. It's not even the longest-running tech court case. (The DR-DOS vs. Microsoft case ran for over a decade and the Microsoft antitrust case in the US was really just an extension of the Windows 95 illegal bundling case.)

      Nor is US justice considered particularly competent, by many observers even in the

  • Oh SCO, how did you sink soo low....

    When I was a child I use to hope the Circus would never end, but now I've grown tired of the clowns!
  • Grammar time, /. editors!

    "Remember all the fuss about SCO subpoenaing PJ of Groklaw, where they allege that she's funded"

    Your tense is all off here and that first sentence should have been easier to read, anyways.
  • by alvil ( 1085695 )
    Who to hell still cares what is going on in this stupid "company"? Who is using their products if they still have any?
  • I don't think this case will ever end. Just when things start to move along, SCO comes up with something to stall the progress. I think that the legal action will end when SCO goes bankrupt. Period.

    Novell, IBM, or somebody else will buy the UNIX IP rights (if Novell doesn't already have them) from the smoldering mass that was once the SCO Group and it'll be the end of it. If you currently have SCO stock, it'll be best to dump it right now before the impending impact. Unless the investors get smart and fir
  • Because OSDL, under an IBM Chairman, gave $50,000 of IBM-donated cash to "Groklaw" (i.e. PJ). That's their allegation, one which PJ has declined to deny or even comment on until, quote, she gets "lawyered up".

    You may now commence troll rating me for wanting to discuss SCO's actual core allegation rather than a silly strawman adjunct.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by mattt79 ( 1005999 )
      OSDL never gave $50,000 (or any other amount of money) to Groklaw.

      OSRM (Open Source Risk Management), a completly different entity researching the need for imdemnification of Open Source projects, had briefly employed PJ.


After all is said and done, a hell of a lot more is said than done.