Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


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This discussion has been archived.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:
  • 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.
  • Re:PJ's response (Score:5, Insightful)

    by NickFortune ( 613926 ) on Sunday April 08, 2007 @10:53AM (#18655159) Homepage Journal

    I find it quite incredulous that someone can devote so much time to this cause

    Much the same way that Ken Brown of AdTI had problems believing that Linux wasn't based on the Minix codebase. In fact he had so much trouble that he went ahead and published even after Andrew Tannenbaum (no great friend on Linus' in the past) uncategorically told him that this was not the case [].

    The thing is though, if you accept the notion of computer programmers (Linus, rms, and all the rest of them) devoting all their spare time to creating a Free Software operating system, who do you find it so strange that someone whose expertise lies in the legal sphere should devote her time to defending the same?

    There are people who can't program but who write documentation to support their favourite free software projects. Must we assume they too are secretly funded by IBM?

  • Re:PJ's response (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Oriumpor ( 446718 ) on Sunday April 08, 2007 @11:08AM (#18655241) Homepage Journal
    The whole unclean hands bit actually holds up in court. If you had RTFA you'd see the rebuttal is that PJ has not reported on sealed documents or closed transcript hearings. Obvious SCO shills have.

    It's hard to claim that the documents that are given out by IBM PR and the court (with court stamps, and volunteer's picking the crap up) is privileged. If you actually read Groklaw, that's nearly all that's reported (albeit, with a heavy dose of op-ed.)

  • Re:PJ's response (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Socguy ( 933973 ) on Sunday April 08, 2007 @11:18AM (#18655289)
    PJ has ruffled lots of feathers.

    Firstly, she's not a lawyer but a paralegal and this offends some people who seem to believe that only those who've passed the bar have the necessary mental acuity required to effectively navigate the morass of legalese found in the courtroom.

    Secondly, lot's of people don't believe that PJ would devote so much time to supposed 'hobby' unless she is getting some kind of compensation. Well, I believe it. If someone is enjoying whatever they do, then that is often the reward in itself. How many hours do people spend on their cars, or building model ships-in-a-bottle? Why is it so hard to believe that someone may spend a couple hours a day on a subject they obviously enjoy?
  • by mangu ( 126918 ) on Sunday April 08, 2007 @12:25PM (#18655735)
    if you accept the notion of computer programmers (Linus, rms, and all the rest of them) devoting all their spare time to creating a Free Software operating system, who do you find it so strange that someone whose expertise lies in the legal sphere should devote her time to defending the same?

    Also, one should never forget that people who are experts in a field have their own resources. I don't know about legal issues (IANAL, etc), but have taken a look at Ken Brown's diatribes and he seems to know nothing at all about operating systems.

    Everything that Linus would have needed to create Linux from scratch is contained in a 150 pages book, "Fundamentals of Operating Systems", by A.M.Lister. I wrote a "toy" kernel myself in Basic for a simulated virtual machine, in the early 1980s, when I read that book. Unfortunately, the Tandy CoCo that I had at the time was too limited to run a real OS, although there were people running OS/9 on it.

    All this is to say that I find Ken Brown's incredulity much more surprising than the fact that Linus wrote his kernel in spare time. Writing 10000 lines in a year? Heck, I once wrote 2000 lines in a week, tested, debugged and documented. Any programmer knows that for every "algorithm" line that you must ponder and twist and turn this and that way to make it work there are a hundred lines of "boiler plate" that you type automatically after a few years experience.

    Therefore, I find it quite natural that someone who is as much interested in legal matters as I am interested in computers would be able to produce an amount of work in that field that would amaze me. Perhaps reading and analyzing a ten thousand pages legal brief would be as easy as writing a ten thousand lines program is for me, if I had the necessary interest, talent, and experience.

  • by Captain Nitpick ( 16515 ) on Sunday April 08, 2007 @03:55PM (#18657289)

    Easy to fix.
    Require potential moderators to take a pop quiz on TFA before they are allowed to moderate on it.

    That would require the "editors" to read TFA so they can write the quiz. That'll never happen.

  • by iapetus ( 24050 ) on Sunday April 08, 2007 @07:07PM (#18658417) Homepage
    No! []

Some people manage by the book, even though they don't know who wrote the book or even what book.