" Ooooops. Somebody needs to apologize maybe?"

Ehm why would I have to do that? Because you want to unseal the court documents? This shows somehow that you do have integrity? I see that you filed together with SCO, them stipulating to jan 7th? So basically you are asking an apology while nudging even closer to SCO? Maybe I'm missing something but from where I stand you've just shown that my remarks are to the point. The fact that you reported sealed information and are now asking to unseal that information does not absolve you after the fact.

Maybe it's time to try some independant journalism again?

"SCO's suit claims IBM improperly incorporated aspects of SCO's Unix operating system in Linux. If proved, it could derail the Linux market and take the open source movement down with it."

You wish!

It became clearly over a year back that SCO was lying about millions of lines of infringing code. They never produced any proof, and they've long since stopped making such wild claims.

Now they are trawling with ever increasing desperation for some evidence - actually *any* evidence - of possible infringement, no matter how tiny. In the event that SCO eventually found some small snippet of Linux that they can prove wasn't quite legitimate, that small section of code would be simply and quickly rewritten. No need to abandon the whole of Linux, let alone open source.

Doubt they'll have time to find this needle in the haystack though, even if it existed. Tip to SCO: over here in Old Europe it's common practice to have at least *some* evidence *before* suing. Perhaps things are different in the USA, but I'm sure even there judges have limits to their patience. "Oh Your Honour, we were making it up about having millions of lines of infringing code, but please just give us 5 more years of discover and maybe just maybe we'll find a few lines."

LOL

And it's interesting how Maureen hasn't flinched.

are you mental or too young commented on 2 December 2004:

First, let me say that you don’t appear to have looked into what you are saying.

You wrote:
These documents were sealed after the "open" court hearing the buddies of this cyber-person were also present. Her buddies reported to Paul Jones the same exact thing Maureen published. Paul Eggar deleted this report from Groklaw. It WAS an OPEN court! Do you get it?

First try Paula, not Paul. Second, I would love to know who this Paul Eggar is. Third, it was an open court but what SCO spouted off in court was sealed information and was not to be repeated for the public (something all parties agreed to, including SCO). Forth, what kind of psycho statement is “Paul Eggar deleted this report from Groklaw”? Everything you mention missing is still there. Just go look. Or if you will, allow me since you seem incapable of doing yourself. http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20041023153851359&query=maureen...

You wrote:
Now, what will happen is Groklaw's ass will be dragged into this court during the process. Most likely, witnesses will show up and say I reported what Maureen reported in her news story and Groklaw deleted my blog entry.

Have you completely lost your mind? Groklaw doesn’t have an ass, it’s a web site. Why in the world would they drag PJ or anyone else in court (especially relating to deleting a blog or comment)? Who runs that site; you or PJ? Since when are there laws that state you cannot edit anything from your web site? She can bump, delete remove, hide anything she wants on her own site.

You wrote:
That's what's gonna happen. After this cowerd PJ and her mob gang becomes long history, Maureen will continue doing her journalism and may even get a Pulitzer Prize for its outcome.

Since Maureen is paid to be a journalist, I certainly hope so. Why are you calling anyone a coward? You have never met this person and you certainly don’t know enough them to question whether they are brave or not (not that even matters). Just because you don’t like their cause, doesn’t make them a coward. I’ve never met you either and at least I use my real name, you coward.

You wrote:
After PJ crap becomes history, few ignorant cult member attack dogs (some of them behave exactly like one) will need to either find themselves jobs and work like most people do or look for another cult to join. This is not an open source defense fight, this is cyber terrorism against our legal system.

Again, I love the humor of your ignorance. How in the world did you come to that conclusion? There have not been any attacks against the court or the court system from open source in this case. In fact there are a whole lot more positive things said about the courts and the judges than against. In fact I would say the only real insulting attack against the courts was when a journalist filed to intervene in the SCO vs. IBM case for the public’s interest. First, that is crap and you know it. Confidential information is the property of the parties in the case and nobody else’s. Those parties are IBM, SCO (of course, their attorneys) and the courts. Everyone thinks what it sealed are the smoking guns of the case. What is sealed could be conversations that do not show the “corporate” image they want to project to the public (cursing, bad mouthing other companies and the like; something that every business does). It may be financial information, salaries, payouts and other information that is only for the eyes of the companies and their employees. It could also be code. Since that is protecting trade secrets; again the public has no right to see this. In any case all the parties seem content with this arrangement; so what is Maureen’s real motive. The only thing I can think of is that she feels the courts are doing a crappy job so she wants this tried in public. Sounds like and insult to me.

You wrote:
Everyone has the right to have their day in court. Serial murderers have the right for a trial in court. Even SCO has the right to have his case in court. That's why we have a judicial system which works (most of the time).

Then why does Maureen feel compelled to intervene? Can’t the courts handle this case themselves without Maureen’s 2 cents? Open source is not against SCO going to court; they are against why they are in court. We feel this is a baseless case against Linux from a company that distributed and contributed to Linux and now wants to claim they have been duped by IBM. Duped, maybe yes. Illegal, more than likely no. We shall see when the courts decide this case. Maureen has already made her decision it appears, so the courts don’t need her help thank you.

You wrote:
You just don't hide in cyberspace and have your soldiers do a kill job for you. That does not happen in a civilized western society in the 21st century even with the convenience of the internet. Internet does not change the basic rules of the game. You get it now?

Hide in cyberspace, hmmm. This comes from someone that uses an alias to write comments. Who is hiding again? The rules that you are referring to is called the court system. And it seems to be working fine in this situation. So I fail to see what point you are making.

Don’t even get me started about getting jobs or other stupid, baseless comments. You think that your post is from a hard working person just because you are against open source and open source posts come from homeless, jobless people (that just happen to know how to use a computer to be able to participate in the first place). I guess they go to Starbucks and use their wireless links or perhaps a cyber café. No, wait, that won’t work because you have to make money in order to spend money. Maybe they are using mommy and daddy’s computer. Or maybe it is you that is using mommy and daddy’s computer since you don’t seem to be making logical statements.

Ok that was too long winded. But I felt this poster seemed to cover a lot of blanket thoughts regarding the anti-open source movement. And I apologize for the berating, insulting comments to this poster. The intention is to underscore the aggressive and hostile nature of the post. I don’t care for stereotyping or the tone that all pro-open source are bums, hippies with no jobs rabble raisers and anti-open source people are hard working, tax paying, squeaky clean mature adults

SCO and you have lost your credibility. No UNIX user, no journalist believes your stories anymore.

SCO = daily media fuss and no single proof. It's over, get it. Don't make noise when you got no case.

att: are you mental or too young

Why are you so angry?

And... No, the thing here is that the information that was breached was confidential and not for the ears of the court. It was not sealed after the session it was sealed evidence.

I understand a thing or two about law. I'm in IT but my entire family is in Law.

idiot

Did anyone notice that PJ and her Groksters became
blind and deaf today when it came time to focus on
and repudiate SCO's legal claim:

"SCO did not breach the GPL by selling its UNIX
license. The Court is to interpret a copyright license
agreement in accordance with general principles of
contract construction. See Miller v. Glenn Miller
Prods., Ltd., 318 F. Supp 2d 923,934(C.D. Cal 2004).
("Courts apply general principles of contract
interpretation when interpreting the terms of scope of
a licensing agreement"); Mendler v. Winterland Prod.,
Ltd., 207 F.3d. 1119, 1121 (9th Cir. 2000)(applying
such principles in interpretation of copyright
license)."

Hmmmm... maybe it's a CONTRACT after all.

Daniel Wallace

Hi,
This must be the stupidest 'news' I ever found in my mailbox. A good reason to at last click on this link:

http://sys-con.com/globaldelete.cfm?email=name@provider.com

And never waste time on nonsense like this again.
Luc.

Still say the only thing that matters is if all of the files come out in the wash. Let the dirty laundry from both sides hit the street. Then I can make up my own mind from there. If that is successful, then we can all see both sides of the fence and decide for ourselves what is right.

No spin - just the facts, please.

Have a nice day.

freecode

Who is "are you mental or too young" ? Is it Rob Enderle ? At least the style is similar.

Okay so if I understand this aright the deal is that Groklaw's ear- and eye-witnesses at the hearing are saying that none of *them* heard any of what O'Gara reported about IBM supposedly claiming not to be able to find code. If she has committed an offence then it isn't that of lying, but of disclosing something that's true - am I getting this right? Can we not infer, from the way this has played out, that what she reported is actually true - why else all this incredible fuss??? Surely companies are not like individuals, so long as trade secrets aren't involved why don't we have a right to know everything that goes on in a public trial - who pays the judge's salary in the Utah district court, for example: is it IBM or the taxpayer? Surely neither SCO nor IBM needs to go on being protected by the judge now that this petition to open court documents has been made. Please correct me if I am wrong, as IANAL. Seems to me the Groklaw tactics of causing a fuss about this have backfired now that O'Gara has called their bluff and done as they asked by petitioning the judge. No?

to understand things?

Maureen O'Gara is a legend and an institution in technology journalism. She is not an unknown cyber person who knows who may live in the caves of Afganistan.

These documents were sealed after the "open" court hearing the buddies of this cyber-person were also present. Her buddies reported to Paul Jones the same exact thing Maureen published. Paul Eggar deleted this report from Groklaw. It WAS an OPEN court! Do you get it? And there were people who were in that court room who did report the same exact information to Groklaw. Groklaw deleted this information. Maureen did not dig out this information from the sealed court files. Groklaw received the same information from th eopen court hearing and intentionally deleted this from the web site, like they always do.

Now, what will happen is Groklaw's ass will be dragged into this court during the process. Most likely, witnesses will show up and say I reported what Maureen reported in her news story and Groklaw deleted my blog entry.

That's what's gonna happen. After this cowerd PJ and her mob gang becomes long history, Maureen will continue doing her journalism and may even get a Pulitzer Prize for its outcome.

After PJ crap becomes history, few ignorant cult member attack dogs (some of them behave exactly like one) will need to either find themselves jobs and work like most people do or look for another cult to join. This is not an open source defense fight, this is cyber terrorism against our legal system. Everyone has the right to have their day in court. Serial murderers have the right for a trial in court. Even SCO has the right to have his case in court. That's why we have a judicial system which works (most of the time).

You just don't hide in cyberspace and have your soldiers do a kill job for you. That does not happen in a civilized western society in the 21st century even with the convenience of the internet. Internet does not change the basic rules of the game. You get it now?

Puzzled commented on 2 December 2004:

* Can anyone clarify this for me...?

Pamela Jones has just repeated over at Groklaw a serious allegation that she and her followers have made many times, namely that Maureen O'Gara has committed some kind of offense:

Judge Wells certainly was not born yesterday, and she observed what happened at the last hearing, how confidential matters were "accidentally" leaked by one of SCO's attorneys, and now up pops the very reporter who reported some more details about that leaked info, despite apparently not being at the hearing in person

But my question is this: who decides what is "confidential"? Not PJ, surley. Or am I missing something?

Well, it's actually the judge and apparently there's more to it than finger pointing but I wasn't there so I'm just making educated guesses about the events.

Here's the Cole's Notes (just in case you don't know):
Back in October, one of SCO's lawyers made the mistake of reading part of a sealed document aloud in court. This is when the judge takes matters into hand, seals the transcript and tells the court room that they didn't hear any of the information.

The deal hear is apparently Maureen wasn't present. I don't know if she was or not because I know I wasn't. Maybe someone saw her there but so far nobody has come forward to state that she was.

Further to that in Maureen's report she wrte about information that wasn't read aloud from the sealed document.

I think that pretty much covers it.

If you want here's a link to Groklaw's take on it:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20041023153851359&query=O%5C%27...

Why is it that the rantings of Jeff Merkey and Daniel Wallace sound so hauntingly similar?

I suspect both SCO and IBM will oppose this suit. SCO definately won't want to unseal all the documents they are keeping hidden from the public and they certainly don't want any links between them and O'gara made public.

Also once this stuff gets to the court there is a chance the SEC might start to scrutinuze the issue a bit and that would be disasterous for SCO