SCO vs. IBM					 Tech Insider's Review

From: Alkaline Petrofsky <>
Newsgroups: alt.os.linux.caldera
Subject: SCO's efforts to depose Pamela Jones
Date: 04 Apr 2007 18:40:47 -0700
Organization: The Vegetable Liberation Front
Message-ID: <>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cache-Post-Path: smirk!
X-Cache: nntpcache 3.0.1 (see
Lines: 333
Xref: alt.os.linux.caldera:316

As was reported on groklaw today, on Monday we finally got some
official public documentation of the long-rumored efforts by SCO to
depose Pamela Jones.  See SCO's motion to allow Jones's hoped-for
deposition in the Novell case to be usable in the IBM case as well:

or, directly from the court (for a small fee):,17917,17917

The weirdest thing about SCO's memo (if taken at face value) is that,
although it includes a weak argument for why Jones's testimony would
be relevant to the SCO v. IBM case, it completely neglects to even
argue why the use of the deposition in this case should not be
precluded by the fact that the fact-discovery cutoff date in this case
passed more than a year ago (on March 17, 2006).  There's no
discussion of why SCO apparently made no effort whatsoever to depose
Jones until the extremely untimely date (for this case) of January 30,

Today, Jones has written at groklaw that:

   SCO told you something that isn't true.  No one tried to serve me
   that I knew about.  No one informed me of any deposition date.

I'm guessing that that means that SCO never bothered sending copies of
the subpoena directly to Jones's email address (listed on the groklaw
website), or by certified mail to Groklaw's official correspondence
address in Scottsdale AZ (listed in the WHOIS record for the domain).

I can understand why, if SCO believed:

   1. that it knew where Jones was; and

   2. that Jones would attempt to hide once she knew that they were
   attempting to serve her;

that SCO would therefore start its efforts by sending, without
warning, a process server to the location where they believed that the
person that they believed to be the Groklaw Pamela Jones could be
found.  However, once that failed, I don't understand why they didn't
immediately proceed to send a copy of the subpoena and a request for
cooperation directly to Groklaw, so as to ensure that the correct
Jones had actual notice of the subpoena as soon as possible.

In late February, Jones had been gone from Groklaw for a couple weeks,
and the rumors of a subpoena did not specify whether it had allegedly
been issued before or after Jones had disappeared.  It thus seemed
that sending something to Groklaw might not be a sufficient method for
reaching Jones.  At the time, I suggested in an email to SCO that they
publish the subpoena on their website.  I've included that email
below.  I did not receive any response, and it appears that SCO may
have stubbornly persisted for two months with a stealth strategy of
conducting a wild goose chase for a Connecticutter who may or may not
be the Groklaw Pamela Jones, while they never sent anything directly
to Groklaw, where it almost certainly would have reached the Groklaw
Pamela Jones.


SCO's only argument for the relevance of the deposition to the SCO
v. IBM case -- or, at least, the only such argument that appears in
the "ARGUMENT" section -- is this single sentence on page 6:

   The foregoing evidence establishes that Ms. Jones's testimony is
   relevant in both the SCO v. IBM and SCO v. Novell litigations.

The only foregoing sentences I can find that appear to be attempting
to establish such relevance are these ones on page 2:

   Through the website, Ms. Jones has reported extensively on and
   repeatedly disseminated Novell's claims of ownership of the UNIX
   copyrights, as well as generally addressed SCO's disputes with
   Novell and IBM since the inception of those lawsuits.  The content
   and commentary of the website (and other evidence) show that
   Ms. Jones is not an objective commentator, but rather a vehicle
   through which opponents of SCO have conducted their case against
   SCO in the court of public opinion, where no gate-keeper monitors
   the reliability of content.

The rest of the foregoing matter is generally directed toward
supporting the contention that Jones is an agent of IBM and Novell.
If that's true, then I can see how groklaw's "disseminat[ion] [of]
Novell's claims of ownership of the UNIX copyrights" is relevant to
SCO's claim against Novell for Slander of Title.  However, SCO doesn't
identify any particular claim in the IBM case to which a Jones-IBM
association would be relevant.  I guess SCO is thinking of its claim
for Interference with Business Relationships, but its weird that they
didn't bother to say so.


SCO's evidence (or rather, the non-redacted bits of evidence) for
Jones being an agent of IBM consists of evidence that she was
indirectly funded by IBM and Novell, and evidence that "SCO's
opponents in litigation have been feeding information to Ms. Jones for
publication on Groklaw" (p. 5).  

The evidence of funding all appears to be either weak or redacted
(i.e., a second-hand anonymous account of OSDL funding; the
long-standing association of IBM with Ibiblio as a whole; and a couple
redacted paragraphs).

The evidence of IBM "feeding information" to Groklaw on a couple
occasions looks conclusive to me.  However, that "fed" information is
simply copies of public court documents.  In particular, SCO shows
that Groklaw published IBM's conformed copy of document #232 on August
16, 2004, two days before the filed copy was entered in the case file
and became available to the public from the Clerk of Court.  However:

   1. That document had already been served on SCO on August 13;

   2. It contained nothing that either party had designated
      confidential; and

   3. It would soon become available from the clerk, anyway.

So what the heck was the harm in IBM providing copies of it to Groklaw
or any other members of the public?

SCO itself provides copies of numerous non-confidential court filings to
the public, through the "scoip" section of its website:

It has also directly "fed" some of these public filings to me and some
other people by email on a few occasions.  I wrote about one example
of that last year on the Yahoo SCOX stock message board:

   29-Jun-06 12:10 pm by al_petrofsky
   Subject: SCO: 'strongest areas still on table'

   I'm a little surprised there don't seem to be any mainstream news
   reports yet about yesterday's ruling.

   On the other hand, this story has somewhat dropped off the radar at
   this point.

   As a result of emailing to SCO Investor Relations a couple years
   ago (see Messages 175924 and 175926), my email address ended up on
   a list of addresses that receive occasional one-paragraph mini-news
   releases.  "Occassional" meaning about ten over the last two years.

   From an email late yesterday, SCO's brave-face response to the
   ruling is:

   "We continue to believe the strongest areas of our case are still
   on the table and look forward to presenting our claims before a
   jury in February 2007."

   There was no mention (yet) of requesting the order be reviewed by
   the District Judge.

   I assume a few journalists received this statement last night, and
   I imagine we'll see one of them write about the ruling soon.


   Subject: SCO Court Order and Comments
   Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 17:34:59 -0600

   Attached is the court order that was issued today on IBM's motion
   to limit 193 of our 294 areas of infringement.  The court has
   granted in part, IBM's claim and is eliminating 182 out of the 193
   areas they challenged and leaving 11 in place. This leave a total
   of 112 areas that still remain in the case. We continue to believe
   the strongest areas of our case are still on the table and look
   forward to presenting our claims before a jury in February 2007.

Although I don't see anything wrong with Groklaw, or anybody else,
obtaining any public filings directly from any of the parties, I will
note that Jones appears to have lied about it, and I don't know what
to make of that.  In March 2005, she wrote that there was "not a
single document" on Groklaw, at the time, that she had not "personally
g[o]t from the courts":

   Authored by: PJ on Sunday, March 27 2005 @ 06:08 PM EST

   Not so. I never ever take any documents from SCO's site.  It's been
   our policy from the earliest days on Groklaw that we only use
   documents we personally pick up from the court or get from Pacer,
   and there is not a single document here on Groklaw that I didn't
   personally get from the courts in one of those two ways.


On Groklaw's "official address":

The domain was originally registered in September 2002 to
a Pamela Jones in Hartsdale NY.  You can still find that registration
record in the WHOIS archives of, where it is Dialog File
Number 225, Accession Number 215670118:

Since 2003, the registrant of and has been
Domains by Proxy, Inc. (DBP), an affiliate of, Inc..
Here's the current registration record:

      Domains by Proxy, Inc.
      15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
      Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
      United States

      Registered through:, Inc. (
      Domain Name: GROKLAW.COM
	 Created on: 26-Sep-02
	 Expires on: 26-Sep-09
	 Last Updated on: 06-Dec-05

      Administrative Contact:
	 Private, Registration
	 Domains by Proxy, Inc.
	 15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
	 Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
	 United States
	 (480) 624-2599

      Technical Contact:
	 Private, Registration
	 Domains by Proxy, Inc.
	 15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
	 Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
	 United States
	 (480) 624-2599

      Domain servers in listed order:

The current registration record is similar.

As the registrant, DBP is responsible for the use of the domain.  Per
the rules of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
(ICANN), if someone contacts DBP regarding any "actionable harm"
arising from the domain, then DBP must either accept all
responsibility, or else put the person in contact with whichever DBP
customer it is to whom DBP delegates responsibility for the domain.
See section of the ICANN Registrar Accreditation Agreement,
dated May 17, 2001: Any Registered Name Holder that intends to license use of a
   domain name to a third party is nonetheless the Registered Name
   Holder of record and is responsible for providing its own full
   contact information and for providing and updating accurate
   technical and administrative contact information adequate to
   facilitate timely resolution of any problems that arise in
   connection with the Registered Name.  A Registered Name Holder
   licensing use of a Registered Name according to this provision
   shall accept liability for harm caused by wrongful use of the
   Registered Name, unless it promptly discloses the identity of the
   licensee to a party providing the Registered Name Holder reasonable
   evidence of actionable harm.

If SCO simply sent a subpoena to Jones, through DBP, and Jones refused
to make arrangements for service of the subpoena (or to waive
service), then I imagine DBP would then be willing to provide SCO with
whatever contact information Jones provided to DBP (and, if that
information turned out to be invalid, then DBP would proceed to cancel
the domain registration).


Here's my February email, discussed above:

   Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 13:42:41 -0800
   From: Al Petrofsky <>
   To: "Darl McBride CEO, c/o Ryan Stephenson, PR" <>
   CC: "Bert Young, CFO" <>,
      "Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols" <>,
      "Maureen O'Gara" <>,
      "Bob Mims" <>,
      "Pamela Jones" <>,
      "Peter Roozemaal" <>,
      "Brent Hatch, counsel for SCO Group" <>,
      "Michael Jacobs, counsel for Novell" <>
   Subject: Could you release the Pamela Jones subpoena and deposition notice?

   [Ryan -- Could you forward this to Darl for me?  The email address I have for
   him doesn't work.  Thanks.  -Al]


   I've read the news reports about SCO's unsuccessful efforts to
   subpoena Pamela Jones of  According to a Steven
   J. Vaughan-Nichols article on February 15, you said that you are doing
   this because "she has some material of importance to [y]our slander of
   title case with Novell".

   I think a lot of people would like to know a little more specifically
   what information you think Jones has that would be relevant to your
   case.  I imagine that you'll be asked about that at your upcoming
   conference call on March 1 (Thursday), and I imagine that you might
   not want to try to give an off-the-cuff answer (and that your lawyers
   especially might not want you to try to give an off-the-cuff answer).

   I was thinking that it might make sense for you to simply post to a copy of the subpoena and any deposition notice
   that you are trying to serve on Jones.  Then everyone could see what
   documents are at issue (if you requested any documents in the
   subpoena) and what topics are at issue (if you specified any in a
   deposition notice).

   Even if there aren't many specifics in the subpoena and deposition
   notice, seeing the date on the subpoena would at least resolve some
   public uncertainty about whether it was issued before or after Jones
   announced her hiatus from Groklaw on February 10.

   (It also occurs to me that if you are not able to accomplish personal
   service, then you may eventually be asking the court to allow
   alternative service by publication.  It seems like the earlier you
   publish what you are trying to serve on her, then the earlier she will
   likely have actual notice of it, and the earlier this whole matter can
   reach a resolution.)

   Thanks for your consideration.

   -Al Petrofsky

From: Al Petrofsky <>
Newsgroups: alt.os.linux.caldera
Subject: SCO's efforts to locate a calendar 
[was Re: SCO's efforts to depose Pamela Jones]
Date: 15 Jun 2007 17:48:44 -0700
Organization: The Vegetable Liberation Front
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cache-Post-Path: smirk!
X-Cache: nntpcache 3.0.1 (see
Lines: 88
Xref: alt.os.linux.caldera:317

Today SCO filed its reply brief on the motion it filed back on April 2
in the SCO v. IBM case.

The motion had sought to have the court allow the deposition of Pamela
Jones in the SCO v. Novell case, should it ever occur, to be usable in
the IBM case as well.

See my parent usenet message, dated April 4, for evidence of the
feebleness, up to that date, of SCO's purported efforts to depose

Here is the entire text of SCO's reply today:

   SCO respectfully submits that the motion has been mooted given that
   the referenced date of April 30, 2007 referred to in the opening
   memorandum has passed.

Thus, we have the following timeline:

   On April 2, SCO filed the motion (#1016), and incorrectly noted on
   page one of the supporting brief (#1019, redacted in #1018) that
   the deposition deadline was approaching on May 31 (see page 1).

   On April 6, SCO filed a corrected brief (#1023, redacted in
   #1022), noting that the deposition deadline was actually
   approaching on April 30.

   On April 27, IBM filed its opposition brief (#1038).

   On April 30, the deadline in the Novell case for SCO to take the
   deposition passed.  The deadline had been extended four times
   before (from the original deadline of November 1, 2006), but this
   time SCO made no motion to extend it any further.  

   Because SCO's inept efforts to subpoena and depose Jones had not
   succeeded before this deadline, and because SCO did not make any
   effort (i.e., file a motion) to extend the deadline, the motion in
   the IBM case was now moot.

   On May 11, SCO's reply memorandum on the now-moot motion came due.
   Rather than withdrawing the motion, SCO asked for two more weeks to
   prepare its reply (#1050).  This request was granted (#1057).

   On May 25, SCO's reply memorandum on the now-even-mooter motion
   again came due.  Rather than withdrawing the motion, SCO asked for
   an additional three weeks to prepare its reply (#1058).  This
   request was also granted (#1065).

   Today, June 15, SCO filed its reply (#1069) on the now-very-moot
   motion.  After five weeks of intense extra-innings legal research,
   Edward "Ted" Normand, SCO's crack lawyer from Boies, Schiller, and
   Flexner, had at last determined that the date April 30, 2007, is
   indeed in the past.

All of which inevitably leads to this question: just how far up Ted
Normand's ass is Ted Normand's head?

One can only wonder.



Misc. links:

More generally, "Colonel Zen"'s page has been good:

Experimental, highly subject to breakage, but good if you want to know
what time of day something was entered:

The materials and information included in this review are not to be used 
for any other purpose other than private study, research or criticism.

Electronic mail:			       WorldWideWeb: