Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


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This discussion has been archived.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 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. []
  • 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...
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 08, 2007 @10:56AM (#18655175)

    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 SCOx's FUD. Who learned from whom?

    wb - Happy Easter
  • Re:PJ's response (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Wylfing ( 144940 ) <brian@wylfing . n et> on Sunday April 08, 2007 @10:59AM (#18655185) Homepage Journal

    The 'shy' bit, in my opinion, covers a multitude of feelings regarding having your online identity too-precisely connected to your meatspace identity. PJ doesn't have to be socially reluctant in order to not want everyone reading her web site to know real-life details about her, but if she is shy then that just makes these feelings more acute. For example, I am not shy, but I did once have a web site that became very popular for a time. It didn't feature a message board, per se, but I received massive amounts of email from readers, some of which I posted back to the site, etc. So there was a pretty large 'community,' and a certain fraction of that community wanted to know personal details about me. I always deflected these requests. As far as I am aware, none of the several hundred people trying to figure out who I was or what I was like in real life were successful.

    Did I have a reason for keeping things 'secret' like that? Maybe not, but there is something unsettling about that kind of scrutiny, something you feel like you want to avoid. I don't blame PJ at all for keeping her real-life details mysterious. It makes a lot of sense to me.

  • Re:PJ's response (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 08, 2007 @11:08AM (#18655245)

    And pointing at them and saying 'nyeh-nyeh you do it too' does nothing to address the original suspicion.

    PJ didn't admit to doing any such thing from what I read, it was more like "nyeh-nyeh you are doing what you wrongly accused me of doing".

    I find it quite incredulous that someone can devote so much time to this cause (not that I am on SCO's side). It will definitely answer things if PJ stand up to the allegations, but unfortunately or conveniently, she is 'shy'.

    If you take a good look around the Free and OSS world you will find numerous people devoting extreme amounts of time to things in it they care a lot about. Take Linus, RSS and Bruce Perens for example, heck for all we know PJ could be one of them in drag and drop, which definately would explain the "shy" factor, even though no one would think of any of them as being shy, not normally at least. Most likely though PJ is just what she says she is, a trained paralegal who likes and respects GNU/Linux and in this case found a way they could contribute back to the community and doesn't seek any fame from it and wishes no problems for herself or her family.

Man is the best computer we can put aboard a spacecraft ... and the only one that can be mass produced with unskilled labor. -- Wernher von Braun