Who Cares If Pamela Jones Is Real Or Not, As Long As Her Information Is Accurate?
from the just-asking dept
There's been a lot of talk in the last couple days about the fact that SCO is trying to subpoena Pamela Jones of Groklaw. For years, SCO has claimed that Pamela Jones is really a front for a group of IBM lawyers, and this latest move has started that discussion going again. However, in all the "does she or does she not exist?" questioning, an important point is missed: what does it matter? Groklaw has remained an excellent source of information about the SCO lawsuit, consistently pointing out accurate information about how far off-base SCO has been with the lawsuit. Whether it comes from some random paralegal or the entire legal team at IBM, the quality of the site has been consistent. If SCO is really so concerned about Jones and Groklaw, there's a really simple solution. They can just respond to the critics on the site. The problem is that, so far, they haven't been able to do so credibly. Every time SCO tries to respond, they just end up digging themselves into a deeper hole. Instead of worrying about who Pamela Jones is (or is not), why don't they put some effort into saving their troubled company?
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
duh by chris on Feb 15th, 2007 @ 1:45pm
how can you egg the house of someone that doesn't really exist?
how are you going to slash their tires?
you know, it costs a lot of money to hire a contract killer, and the quality ones charge you per victim.
i would imagine that the IBM legal team is quite a few people, and given sco's finances (phony lawsuits ain't cheap) it will cost quite a bit to have all of those lawyers rubbed out.
pamela jones on the other hand... that's just one job, easily justified to the accounting department.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Like I wrote somewhere else... by Chris Maresca on Feb 15th, 2007 @ 1:47pm
... I've actually talked with her on the phone. We almost hired her as a consultant 2-3 years ago.
AFAIK, PJ is a real person and has very valuable insights.
Chris.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
not a problem by DV Henkel-Wallace on Feb 15th, 2007 @ 2:14pm
Jeez, guy, buy in bulk already!(sorry to be so off-topic, but this is a consumer educational issue).
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Anonymous Coward on Feb 15th, 2007 @ 2:26pm
A couple of years back, SCO said that they were going to set up their own web site, to counter the Groklaw FUD. That never happened. Guess why.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
What happened to the stalking? by SCOlover on Feb 15th, 2007 @ 3:17pm
Didn't Maureen O'Gara go overboard with the whole stalking thing with Jones, publishing all kinds of personal information about her? Didn't she even follow Jones, the person, around her hometown taking pictures of her? How do they reconcile that? I could see accusing her of being a front for multiple people, but accusing her of not even existing is tough.
My guess is she gathered from the direction of the case that she was about to be subpoenad, doesn't want any part of it, and is laying low somewhere in the meantime.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
What if Hitler claimed the sky was blue? by Sean on Feb 15th, 2007 @ 3:37pm
It's a bit sad, but the credibility of the person making the claim is just as important as the claim itself!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Why are they trying to discredit PJ? by Jeff R. on Feb 15th, 2007 @ 3:47pm
Because one is within the realm of things they can possibly accomplish and the other isn't?
Not that they have much chance in their attempt to discredit PJ, but it's infinitely more likely than their winning any of the lawsuits they're currently involved in.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
PJ Who? by Lawrence D'Oliveiro on Feb 15th, 2007 @ 4:38pm
If “Pamela Jones” is a real person, why does he feel the need to keep his identity such a secret? That’s not how journalists are supposed to operate. They’re supposed to stand by what they publish. Except perhaps in police states...
One of the Linux magazines has a column by “Pamela Jones” and it’s quite remarkable to see the comparison with all the other columnists: every single one puts their picture at the top of the page, except for PJ’s one, which has some ridiculous cartoon face in its place.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
PJ _is_ a front for a vast collection of Linux and by zcat on Feb 15th, 2007 @ 4:51pm
Groklaw is a community. It's the Open Source Method applied to legal research. IBM's and SCO's lawyers are both known to read it, I have no idea how much either group contribute to it. PJ does write a huge amount of material but what majes Groklaw really happen is many other people contributing ideas, doing research, converting scanned documents and PDF's to searchable text.
Nobody ever pretended otherwise. This is news?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Abuse by Lawsuit by sysadmn on Feb 15th, 2007 @ 5:09pm
The point isn't to prove PJ is a front. SCO may float that, but it's doubtful they really believe it. More likely, they hope to deposition her into bankruptcy. And if she gets pro bono support, well, there's always something embarassing to drag out of any witness. Let her serve as a warning to the next blogger with an opinion we don't like.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Quite real by Gene Hoffman on Feb 15th, 2007 @ 5:34pm
Pamela Jones is a real enough person that I've spent a couple of hours face to face with her talking about patents. I've also shared a lunch at a very tasty joint in North Carolina when we were both there for a conference.
Lots of people don't particularly care for her speaking certain truth to power. I personally think she is a bit skittish but I don't walk in her shoes.
-Gene
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Another possibility by Pseudonym on Feb 15th, 2007 @ 7:17pm
I've heard it suggested that one reason why they're trying to go after her is if they can prove PJ to be a front for IBM's legal team, then their work product is no longer privileged.
But regardless, the theory doesn't make any sense. IBM's legal team would, surely, not be so critical of the Novell-Microsoft deal.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Die SCO Just Die.. Do us all a favor. by nukem on Feb 15th, 2007 @ 7:27pm
Truth is truth. If SCO don't like it refute it. SCO do us all a favor including PJ and an just crawl in your rate hole and DIE! We're sick of this whole fiasco.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Yeah, right, whatever by Mike on Feb 16th, 2007 @ 6:49am
"Truth is not truth"...it's all subjective.... They've (as in "them") found the way to disassociate truth from facts a long time ago...even before GWB...So since they can't bully the facts she puts out, they'll bully the truth about her...sad, but true.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment