|By Maureen O'Gara||
|October 22, 2004 12:00 AM EDT||
SCO and IBM met in federal court in Utah again Tuesday for another go-round over the discovery that IBM hasn't produced in SCO's $5 billion lawsuit against it.
At the hearing, one of SCO's lawyers, another young thing from Boies, Schiller & Flexner whose footwork was smooth enough to impress even Groklaw's IBM-dazzled observers, mentioned the little matter of SCO's days-old Third Amended Complaint, which, alas, is under seal reportedly because it's based on some e-mail that turned up during discovery that IBM now claims is privileged though there's supposedly no hint of attorney-client communication about it.
Anyway, the sealed Third Amended Complaint has to do with SCO's contention that - to compete against Sun - IBM put SCO-owned SVR4 code in System 3-based AIX for its proprietary Power chip architecture - and one of the supposedly compromising IBM e-mails - that SCO just happened to read out loud in court the other day - suggests that IBM was conscious that it had overstepped the bounds of its Project Monterey contract with SCO, which was intended to produce only a version of AIX for Intel's Itanium chip (CSN No 564).
Well, during the Third Amended Complaint discussion, SCO's lawyer held up a piece of paper - that was duplicated on a projection screen that only the magistrate judge, Brooke Wells, could see - that listed all of the AIX code that IBM has and hasn't turned over to SCO. And SCO's lawyer pointed out that the only piece of code that IBM hasn't come up with - which was highlighted in red - was the AIX-on-Power code - to which IBM's lawyer replied that IBM "can't find it."
Shades of the Compuware suit. They "can't find it."
Makes one wonders whether IBM looked in that closet in Australia where it said a few weeks ago it just happened to stumble over the source code - the source code it swore - literally swore in court for two years - didn't exist - the code that it was supposed to produce during the court-ordered discovery phase of the suit that Compuware brought against IBM for, well, for stealing its source code.
IBM only managed to find the code after discovery had closed and the trial was about to start, a situation that it got its ears boxed for by the District Court for Eastern Michigan, which called its behavior "gross negligence."
Magistrate Wells has yet to cross that bridge, however.
After listening to what everybody had to say - and all the reasons why IBM shouldn't have to produce all the rest of the stuff that SCO wants - particularly the IBM Configuration Management and Version Control System (CMVC) and Revision Control System (RCS) that SCO thinks is the key to its case - she reserved any final decision so she could go off and have a think about it - and probably confer with her staff and her colleague Judge Dale Kimball, who's hearing IBM's motion for a partial summary judgment - a decision, IBM pointed out, that might make her ruling moot.
However, she did give IBM and SCO 30 days to exchange so-called privilege logs listing all of the discovery that they're not providing each other because it's allegedly privileged.
She also told IBM to get affidavits from IBM management, including CEO Sam Palmisano, the CTO of IBM's Unix/Linux interests Irving Wladawsky-Berger and IBM's board of directors, attesting that nothing more exists in their files regarding IBM's Linux activities.
See, IBM - having produced one single PowerPoint presentation - contends that there are no other e-mails, memos, business plans or presentations about Linux anywhere in the joint, evidently proving that not only can elephants dance, but that they really do have good memories.
|PAckerAck 05/20/09 09:51:00 AM EDT|
It's funny, but the transcript of that court hearing is sealed. Why? SCO read a privileged email out loud in open court, strangely enough, concerning this very architecture (and that's all we'll know unless SCO & co. leak information, or the court releases a redacted transcript). As you may or may not realize, that's bad. As in the kind of thing that gets the lawyers in trouble.
So that makes it hard to comment on what this all means, but it does make me suspicious here. What better way to spread FUD than to get the court transcript sealed and blather whatever you like to the media in the mean time? Whether by accident or design, that's exactly what SCO has been doing.
And, as for this code, I sincerely doubt it contains anything helpful to SCO. By all accounts, they've filed an utterly baseless lawsuit that has forever been in search of any wrongdoing by IBM, and they haven't exactly come up with a lot.
Every single piece of "evidence" they have ever put forth that we can actually see and analyze has been shown not to support SCO's position. Rather, they pounce on anything the least bit out of place and use innuendo to imply that there "must" be something more to it, because we cannot assume they would be so stupid as to do something like this without some proof...
Given that that's how they've been operating, I conclude that this is nothing more than an unscripted bluff. That's right--they have no master plan, they're just making up crap as they go along, using whatever story is most convenient at the time. That's why the story keeps changing--they're bluffing and they have been the whole time. It was never anything but a shakedown premised on the theory that a company the size of IBM must have something to hide.
So, to anyone who says "there must be something to this, or SCO wouldn't have done that," I say: SCO really is that dumb.
Now, as for the other story, we're getting legal threats, etc. from that fellow who tried to buy Linux for $50,000 over on Groklaw, all due to some old court documents where people called him delusional. He did say something about a secret, personal mission to "save" Linux (or something--I don't claim to have his story straight any more than someone can claim to understand what SCO's current claims are).
I wonder when this will be turned into a geek soap opera? "As the SCO Burns" or something? :]
|Jadeclaw 12/01/04 03:31:06 PM EST|
Why are so many picking on Linuxworld?
Note to Sys-Con: Ditch Maureen O'Gara. Quickly.
|David Kerran 11/06/04 05:10:19 PM EST|
Well, another biased, unverified, unreliable story from Maureen O'Gara. See you later SYS-CON and LinuxWorld and LinuxBusinessWeek. If this is the quality of reporting I can expect from you then I will vote with my dollars and avoid your publications like the plague. Ms. O'Gara's unfounded and biased rants are unworthy of my attention as they should be yours.
|Not Fooled By MOG 11/02/04 03:22:26 PM EST|
Came to the site. Saw an ad for Microsoft Server running on Windows. Windows? In a so-called Linux publication? Hmm ... article published against Linux, now an ad bought by Microsoft that only runs on Windows ... this one is definitely walking like a duck.
|Esquilax 11/01/04 01:25:59 PM EST|
Absolutely no journalistic integrity whatsoever.
Maureen: It's a MAN, baby!
|drt 10/30/04 04:53:49 AM EDT|
Quite apart from anything else, Maureen O'Gara's article has to be one of the most badly written pieces of English I have ever had the misfortune to read. Her over-use of colloquialisms makes it very hard to work out what she is actually saying - or is that the point...?
|Charles G. 10/28/04 08:00:02 PM EDT|
What a badly written, slanted article. I felt I was reading a SCO press release. First time I visited this site, and probably the last. If this is the quality of the writing, I could never believe any review or article.
|Groklaw reader 10/27/04 02:01:32 PM EDT|
"You had the chonies to publish it have the chonies to back your people. Spineless sellouts."
|rts2271 10/27/04 10:27:19 AM EDT|
LOL all I have to say is this. If it's true then the IT community in general owes Ms. O'Gara a apology. If it is not then she should be cited by the court and terminated from her position at Sys-Con, LBW or LinuxWorld whoever really owns her. Fact is There are now 3 publications out of about 25 I subscribe too that I will be cancelling due to the fact that they seem to be more like advertisig flyers then what Im looking for which is accurate IT information. Also after talking to one of my staff attorneys they seem to be of the opinion that the court will censure or fine Mrs O'Gara for reporting the content of a sealed transcript, whether accurate or not.
|Andreas Kuckartz 10/27/04 07:49:01 AM EDT|
"John Horner" seems to be "living in Utah" as some people say today about a certain type of utterings.
Having a defender like him is the worst defense Maureen O'Gara could get. Even she does not deserve that.
|John Horner "the fact is" 10/27/04 07:16:38 AM EDT|
Groklaw is a big fat lier! If the publisher of Linux Busiess Week is still keeping Maureen's story on its front page, that means the publisher is standing behind Maureen's story. There can only be one truth and Maureen is reporting the truth. That leaves us with P.J. and the Groklaw gang as big fat manipulating liers. If I were Linux Business Week, I would investigate Pamela Jones and Groklaw's backgrounds, who she is, what her motives behind her lies are and share them with your readers. If Groklaw's observers were in the court room (Maureen says that they were), then they heard what was said in that court room. I don't believe they reported lies to Pamela Jones just to make her happy. I believe Ms. Jones knows her observers told her the same truth Maureen reported in her story. P.J. is just a big fat lier and Maureen should display her lies to the world. We need more honost reporters like Maureen to save the world from lying, manipulating Groklaws. I would like Linux Business Week uncover every detail in her misterious background. You can see both Maureen's and Linux Business Week's addresses, phone numbers, photos in every article. They have nothing to hide. On the other hand this misterious Pamela Jones lady is soooo misterious for a reason. Why don't you find out who she is, what she does for a living, especially who she gets her sealed documents from, whose payroll she is in, it would be great read to find out all these details. Hey you never know what you find out there could be very interesting indeed. You don't attack innicent people like mad bull dogs and when your neighbor calls the cops, you go hiding in the caves where you think no one can find you. P.J. should go to her blog right now and write immediately: "I Pamela Jones swear to God, we had more than one observer in that court room and each and every one of them contacted me and they all said what Maureen reported did not happen in that court room." She should write the sentence in quotes 100 times today in her blog as if that's her school homework. There is no way she can do that, because she is a big fat lier.... I personally believe the end of Groklaw is near and if Maureen wants to she can take her down. I would like to see her paparazzi photos too. :-))
|Groklaw supporter 10/27/04 04:04:31 AM EDT|
If Maureen could do some fact checking, and substantiate her claims, then she would not draw said ire.
Mr/mrs 'read previous articles' is right, as soon as substantiation is forthcoming I will be the first to apologize to Maureen about some of the less constructive language and emotions in this thread. Time to put up or shut up Maureen!
|Bill 10/27/04 02:17:13 AM EDT|
Maureen O'Gara is married to a woman?
The Trials of Getting My Wife to Run Linux
|Brett - aka "read previous articles" 10/26/04 03:50:40 PM EDT|
More inof for you:
.."if I understand you aright that the SCO lawyers, the IBM lawyers, and the judge are the only people who know what the IBM e-mail that Maureen O'Gara claims said "We can't find it" in reference to the disputed code. Is this right?"
Actually what she said was that IBM said they couldn't find it during the hearing, not in the e-mail. Now there are many people that were at the hearing that did not see Maureen there, so it is questionable where she got her info about the substance of the e-mail that was shown to the judge.
"Do I inder from that, then, that your assumption is that Maureen O'Gara's source must be a lawyer and that it is more likely to be a SCO laywer than an IBM lawyer. Is that the source of all this kerfuffel?"
She should not be party to the substance of that e-mail regardless of who the information came from. That is what a lot of the "kerfuffel" is about. The fact that she did not appear to attend the hearing, and the fact that she has, int he past, on many occasions reported information directly from SCO's executives as fact, well I'll leave it to your imagination...
"I just want to be certain in my own mind of what's really caused this thread to begin in such a hostile fashion..."
I can only speak for myself, but the fact that Maureen has repeatedly presented fiction as fact, without so much as a shred of evidence, and makes no attempt to present both sides of the issue, along with her pokes and jabs at groklaw, has not put her my a-list of where to go to find information I can trust. It's a gut feeling, the kind you get when you see someone who should know better, do something so blatently irresponsible.
"...IANAL: what are the freedom-of-information chances of getting it unsealed?"
Yes, the transcript is seald, and for good reason. IANAL either, so I can't say for sure about getting it unsealed, but a snowballs chance somewhere hot comes to mind.
"...the judge would have to redacted the parts that were privileged, namely the very "We can't find it" part that Maureen O'Gara alleges is there."
"I can't find it" was not something the IBM Attorney said according to wittnesses that were there (not like Maureen who wasn't). Several reliable posters from groklaw were there, and did not wittness any such utterance from IBM.
I agree - this thread has been a drain, but some effort to let Maureen and others know that her mis-steps are not going to go unchallanged is needed. Unfortunately it's her exact kind of "reporting" that helped start this whole nonsense in the first place. Groklaw and FOSS as a whole would not have been is such an uproar if SCO's friends in the media had bothered to check facts and do research before publishing the "facts" that SCO was feeding them.
So, onward and upward
|Vancouverite 10/26/04 01:53:00 PM EDT|
One reason for the vitriol in these comments that you are either ignorant of or ignoring is Maureen's history in re: the SCO/IBM ongoing lawsuit, and in re: Groklaw.
In the beginning, when Maureen put out commentary pieces which were (in the opinion of those tracking things on Groklaw and other venues, i.e. the Yahoo SCOX stock board) inaccurate or providing false information, the forum comments were, on the average, significantly more polite, informative, and aimed at transferring knowledge and opinion to Ms O'Gara.
However, even when the information provided by her in these articles proved incorrect or, at best, a blatant spin, she changed her position not one bit. She has remained, in the face of repeatedly proven inaccuracies, completely pro-SCO, anti-IBM. In addition, as Groklaw's posting of legal documents and analysis hindered her spin and inaccuracies more and more, she came to include "snide" comments about Groklaw and it's participants.
To those interested in the truth, Ms O'Gara's actions in response to proven inaccuracies are not conducive to any belief in her neutrality, accuracy, willingness to verify facts (as opposed to reporting only based on comments from one or more unidentified insiders, almost certainly SCO related) or truthfulness. She has earned, through her repeated actions, a reputation as a "paid shill for SCO" (or, according to some tin-hatters, a Microsoft-Paid shill against Linux).
Now, as to your comments:
"Taking your points in order of importance and relevance to this thread you say at 4b) if I understand you aright that the SCO lawyers, the IBM lawyers, and the judge are the only people who know what the IBM e-mail that Maureen O'Gara claims said "We can't find it" in reference to the disputed code. Is this right?"
That would appear to be the case.
"Do I inder from that, then, that your assumption is that Maureen O'Gara's source must be a lawyer and that it is more likely to be a SCO laywer than an IBM lawyer."
Although a reasonable assumption, it is not necessarily the only source. SCO Management will also be potentially knowledgable on the content of those letters, and various members of SCO's management team have provided information to Maureen in the past. IMO, a member of SCO's managment team is much more likely than any lawyer to be the source of this information.
"Is that the source of all this kerfuffel?"
Not precisely. There were a number of people who post on Groklaw present in the courthouse that day. None of them recall the "can't find it" comment that IBM's lawyers were alleged by Ms O'Gara to have made. None of the know the content of the document shown on the screen to the judge. Yet Ms O'Gara is reporting as fact items that (1) she has no identifiable source for, and (2) are disputed by people who were present at the hearing.
This, in addition to Ms O'Gara's history of incorrect, imprecise, and 'spun' reporting on this issue, lead people who have tracked her actions from the beginning to believe that she is most likely "reporting" imprecise or incorrect comments from an SCO insider who wants to get some damaging press out. Any time that an unverifiable and disputed comment is reported as fact without comment on sources, that should be a red flag, especially when the reporter has a history of spin, imprecision, and taking as gospel inverified comments from one side of a dispute.
"IANAL so I cannot speak to the legality of a member of counsel revealing something that is not in the public domain to another party. But I am beginning to get the impression that there is a certain amount of misdirection going on here and that I should be concentrating on the quest to unseal that transcript so that I can decide for myself where the exact truth here lies."
Although potentially a good idea, even getting the unredacted transcript released would be insufficient to answer this question.
Remember - the information allegedly being commented upon was not read into the record. Thus, the comments will be without context of the document (which apparently is priviledged, and so cannot be unsealed without good reason), and will tell us little more than we have now, other than answering the question as to whether or not IBM said there was code that they could not find. It might not even tell us what code it was that they could not find (if the comment is true).
"I just want to be certain in my own mind of what's really caused this thread to begin in such a hostile fashion - whether, in other words, it is the fact that IBM has admitted something uncomfortable (seen from an open-source purist's point of view) that has, effectively, now been suppressed because of the *way* in which the admission ended up on the court transcript - SCO's lawyers reading it out; or whether it is something else, such as the shape of Maureen O'Gara's head or the color of her complexion (as some of the zealots in this thread seem to have suggested)."
History, mainly. In the opinion of those who have read her previous commentary on the SCO/IBM lawsuit, Maureen O'Gara is not fair, accurate, interested in the truth, or well written. Instead, she is seen as (at best) spinnig like a top or (at worst) reporting lies as truth, with no interest in correcting herself when proven wrong. Most folk (myself included) who have followed her commentary on the SCO/IBM situation come into a new comment of hers assuming that she will be shading the truth a bit. And when her comments are disputed by eyewitnesses, then anger can easily ensue.
It is not that she posted an article stating that "IBM has admitted something uncomfortable" (as you put it). IMO, and in the opinion of others that I have talked with on this, the odds of IBM being a shining white knight is somewhat less than zero. If IBM reveals something that shows they acted wrongly, some will be disappointed, but most (if not all) will accept it. However, "yellow journalism" of reporting unverifiable comments is just unacceptable. Period.
"The heart of this then: it is presently a sealed transcript, yes? The rest is a side-issue compared to that. Again, IANAL: what are the freedom-of-information chances of getting it unsealed?"
Redacted? Probably 50 to 95%. Unredacted? Prior to the end of the lawsuit, probably about 0%. Afterwards -- possible, but still unlikely. SCO broke the rules by reading aloud (twice) something that was claimed as priviledged information, that was inadvertently provided to SCO in discovery. It is amusing that, since this allegedly is the most damaging comment that IBM has made in court during this suit, that SCO ensured that the transcript would be sealed. Isn't it?
"It seems very easy to call someone out over something that cannot be resolved one way or the other because, as you say yourself, in order to release the rest of the transcript the judge would have to redacted the parts that were privileged, namely the very "We can't find it" part that Maureen O'Gara alleges is there."
Actually, it is very easy to call someone out over something that cannot be resolved one way or the other. If I claimed that Darl McBride was, in fact, a clone of Atilla the Hun with plastic surgery, and that I knew that from comments given to me by an IBM insider but could provide no documentation to support it -- would you hesitate to call me out on it? Or would you just accept the comment as truth?
Without verifiable facts, an item is not news. It is, at best, a rumor, and, at worst, a "Weekly World News" headline. And providing the verification is not a task for those who dispute the facts, but for those who allege the facts. If she cannot provide proof, then she should not have reported these things as facts. To do otherwise is irresponsible journalism (an act that Maureen O'Gara has been guilty of on multiple occasions in the past).
If Ms O'Gara cannot provide verification, we must assume that this is not true. And, since she is posing as a journalist, anger at her is appropriate. A journalist who posts rumor as truth without any verification is no journalist, and brings justifiable anger down on him or her self, from those potentially injured by the rumor, and from other journalists as well.
|Alan Sanderson 10/26/04 12:38:03 PM EDT|
Complete and utter rubbish. http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20041023153851359
|Robert Halloran 10/26/04 10:06:59 AM EDT|
Given that you were apparently *NOT* present at the hearing, and referencing sealed materials, how can your piece be seen as anything but relabeled PR spin from the SCO contingent?
The material in question is irrelevant to the core of the case: did IBM take SCO's code and transfer it to Linux? SCO has been unable to demonstrate any such copying in court since the case began, despite much trumpeting in the press that they have "millions of lines". The question of whether or not they even own the code is in question given the Novell case also being heard.
Like other pundits recycling SCO press releases, you have only succeeded in skewering your reputation and probably your career for the sake of getting in another byline. Try finding more honest work.
|OSWatcher 10/26/04 09:56:01 AM EDT|
Thank you "read previous articles" I apprciate your taking the time and trouble to go over some of this. Taking your points in order of importance and relevance to this thread you say at 4b) if I understand you aright that the SCO lawyers, the IBM lawyers, and the judge are the only people who know what the IBM e-mail that Maureen O'Gara claims said "We can't find it" in reference to the disputed code. Is this right?
Do I inder from that, then, that your assumption is that Maureen O'Gara's source must be a lawyer and that it is more likely to be a SCO laywer than an IBM lawyer. Is that the source of all this kerfuffel?
IANAL so I cannot speak to the legality of a member of counsel revealing something that is not in the public domain to another party. But I am beginning to get the impression that there is a certain amount of misdirection going on here and that I should be concentrating on the quest to unseal that transcript so that I can decide for myself where the exact truth here lies.
I just want to be certain in my own mind of what's really caused this thread to begin in such a hostile fashion - whether, in other words, it is the fact that IBM has admitted something uncomfortable (seen from an open-source purist's point of view) that has, effectively, now been suppressed because of the *way* in which the admission ended up on the court transcript - SCO's lawyers reading it out; or whether it is something else, such as the shape of Maureen O'Gara's head or the color of her complexion (as some of the zealots in this thread seem to have suggested).
The heart of this then: it is presently a sealed transcript, yes? The rest is a side-issue compared to that. Again, IANAL: what are the freedom-of-information chances of getting it unsealed?
It seems very easy to call someone out over something that cannot be resolved one way or the other because, as you say yourself, in order to release the rest of the transcript the judge would have to redacted the parts that were privileged, namely the very "We can't find it" part that Maureen O'Gara alleges is there.
From the sidelines it is difficult to see how this will be resolved, but it is distressing to see it being resolved by antipathy and what looks to an outside observer a lot like intimidation 101. Is this something that the Groklaw community, for example, has ever engaged in before? It seems to reflect poorly on the OS community, that is my concern and worry. Could the Groklaw community not concentrate instead on getting the transcript unsealed and so exonerating IBM completely, so we can all resolve this and get beyond it? Further energy expended on this thread seems woefully wasted in comparison to achieving that. As you say of Groklaw folks - and I for one applaud this goal - "They simply appreciate the truth."
"Let's at it!" is all I would say. Thank you again for your full reply.
|read previous articles 10/26/04 09:12:47 AM EDT|
Actually, OSWatcher, if you read some of the sniping that Maureen has done at Groklaw, and take into account the fact that many people treasure PJ as a very trustworthy journalist, you may understand the attitude toward Maureen by some in the Groklaw community.
SCO has made some outrageous claims that threatened the viability of an entire community. Whether or not you believe their claims, is up to you, but those of us who have read the facts, and have looked at their claims devoid of their FUD, recognize them for what they are.
Now, to address a couple of things:
1) "..Groklaw.net, has taken an editorial decision that SCO's action against IBM jeopardizes the status quo so far as open source and Linux is concerned. Am I right so far?"
Groklaw.net has analyzed the contents of the court documents , filings, motions, and hearings. The conclusion is that every claim thus far, or nearly every claim, is false. Also, under close examination, SCO has some VERY murky dealings that lead many to believe that SCO has been paid and or at the least influenced by those with questionable motives.
2) "...Maureen O'Gara, has dared to report at another Web site that IBM isn't necessarily squeaky-clean (what huge 21st century company is?), with the result that everything she reports is now unmercilessly castigated by anyone in the first camp - the Groklaw camp, if you will."
Actually, no. Maureen draws the Groklaw "camp" ire for parroting comments and press releases by SCO, without checking her facts, and has, in several cases looked foolish. She has also bashed the Groklaw community, again, appearing to "support" SCO's position. If Maureen could do some fact checking, and substantiate her claims, then she would not draw said ire.
3) "...zealousness for the "truth" can slide into zealotry, period. Can everything really be this black and white?"
You assume too much - IBM good SCO bad is not what the site is about. Shedding light on the SCO FUD is what the site is about. The Zealotry you as you call it, is a large group of people who are sick of the volumes of untruths that has been unleashed by SCO and many of it's friends, in an attempt to disguise it's true intent. The blizzard of FUD got some hot sunlight, and those perpetrating it got mad. So more FUD, anti groklaw FUD, was unleashed. However, that failed to regain the cloud of secrecy they wanted.
Maureen has played a part in that campaign, and so has invited scrutiny, and her reporting style has not helped her gain many friends.
Zealots are often blind followers; most Groklaw folks are not blind followers. They simply appreciate the truth, and being human, do not appreciate those who perpetuate shady untruths as facts.
3) "Does anyone agree that such zealotry sets us all back? Also, I didn't see any reply yet to the question asked earlier in the thread about whether everyone who has "vented" here will be writing to Ms O'Gara to apologize if, when the court transcript that was sealed last week and which holds the corroboration (she says) of her report is unsealed, it backs her up 100%."
a) This "zealotry" as you ascribe it, only sets SCO and its friends back. FOSS will roll on, and the only losers in the game will be those who can't get used to its presence, and indeed the possibility of its superior motives.
As for the transcript being unsealed, this may or may not happen because the case will have to be concluded first. The document(s) she was referring to was only supposed to be seen by the attorneys and the judge (how Maureen became a party to it's contents begs investigation). Since SCO took it upon themselves to read a sealed document in open court, not unknowingly breaking the rules, the judge took the proper steps and sealed the transcript. Now how likely is it that the judge will reverse her decision and unseal it so Maureen can save face for reporting what she should not have had access to? Unlikely.
As for apologizing, as soon as Maureen apologizes for her actions, and by this I mean reporting FUD as truth, not corroborating her assertions, not backing up her positions with research, and not providing, as is the basic requirement of fair reporting, any balancing points of view, then and only then IF she is proved right, I will apologize.
4) "Surely until that transcript is unsealed, many of the accusations that have been made here are nothing but blind assertions. Or will Groklaw too be seeking, as Ms O'Gara is, to have the transcript unsealed?"
A) The opposite is true - until the transcript is unsealed, what she is reporting is blind assertion, and she should not have said anything about it. It would have been much smarter to push for the unsealing, then report on it once it happened. But now she is in the unenviable position of having to back up her assertions, and has nothing with which to do it - poor journalism in every sense of the word.
b) PJ has stated that she respects the decision of the court to seal the transcript as it contains the privileged information that SCO's lawyers read openly. Now, if the judge redacted the parts that were privileged, which she would have to do in order to release the rest of the transcript, there would be little left to corroborate Maureen's story, now would there? (remember, what she was reporting on was the information in the e-mail, which no one but the judge and the attorneys can see)
Guidance? OK, here's some - take it or leave it.
First, being fair and balanced is the right way to go, and if that is what you are attempting, great. But you might want to do some checking up on the facts before posting.
There is a lot of history behind this story, and without an in-depth understanding of it, you risk being swayed by seemingly innocent (or harsh) comments.
And when the volume (as in mass, not decibels) of comments is overwhelmingly against someone's opinion it's a fair bet it's something to investigate further. (note - I did not say it made the masses correct, just that it bears looking into)
So there you go - hope this enlightens you further
|Phil 10/26/04 07:50:43 AM EDT|
>>In answer to TruthIsA2WayStreet, just consult Wikipedia if you want the inside skinny on Groklaw,<<
Heh. Considering that anybody can register to edit anything on Wikipedia, I would hardly consider that quote definitive.
|OSWatcher 10/26/04 06:48:46 AM EDT|
Okay, thank you very much indeed for your quick and collective help. So what seems to be the core of this somewhat emotive thread then is that one Web site, Groklaw.net, has taken an editorial decision that SCO's action against IBM jeopardizes the status quo so far as open source and Linux is concerned. Am I right so far?
And that another party, Maureen O'Gara, has dared to report at another Web site that IBM isn't necessarily squeaky-clean (what huge 21st century company is?), with the result that everything she reports is now unmercilessly castigated by anyone in the first camp - the Groklaw camp, if you will. Yes?
Permit me then to make an observation. Does this not merely play into the hands of all those who would undermine Linux and open-source as a viable alternative to proprietary software? By posting to this site, and others no doubt, vehement - including so far as I can see very inappropriately personal - remarks, is there not a clear and present danger that the Groklaw community shows that a zealousness for the "truth" can slide into zealotry, period. Can eveything really be this black and white?
"IBM Good, SCO Bad" smacks a little of every other binary distinction in this world of grays - an woefully insufficient framework within which to view "truth."
Does anyone agree that such zealotry sets us all back? Also, I didn't see any reply yet to the question asked earlier in the thread about whether everyone who has "vented" here will be writing to Ms O'Gara to apologize if, when the court transcript that was sealed last week and which holds the corroboration (she says) of her report is unsealed, it backs her up 100%.
Surely until that transcript is unsealed, many of the accusations that have been made here are nothing but blind assertions. Or will Groklaw too be seeking, as Ms O'Gara is, to have the transcript unsealed?
Just watching from the sidelines. I'd appreciate some guidance here. Thanks in advance!
|Infopoint 10/26/04 06:29:52 AM EDT|
In answer to TruthIsA2WayStreet, just consult Wikipedia if you want the inside skinny on Groklaw, Here's what it says specifically about the neutrality of Groklaw:
>The efforts of Groklaw are directed at dismantling SCO's allegations, and thus the community is not neutral or NPOV in the sense Wikipedia strives to be
|anon 10/26/04 06:15:19 AM EDT|
PJ has made it clear that she won't link to "incorrect" articles at Groklaw.net. She has also made it clear she will delete "incorrect" comments. She is displeased with sites like Slashdot that permit (mostly) unfiltered comments and articles.
I think unfiltered comments and articles are far more valuable. I can read many points of view and draw my own conclusions. I don't like being told what to read, what not to read, what I should think, what I shouldn't think. That's precisely why I stopped reading Groklaw several months ago.
|TruthIsA2WayStreet 10/26/04 05:59:43 AM EDT|
A Google-search uncovers the following snippet:
>>One has to look at the reason for the "bias". Is Groklaw biased towards
Does IBM finance Groklaw in any way directly or indirectly - anyone know?
I see also this, from a Slashdot posting:
>Groklaw does not claim to be unbiased. They support >Novell/IBM/Red Hat/Anyone else arrayed against SCO,
|OSWatcher 10/26/04 05:35:08 AM EDT|
I have read this thread with care. It seems that there lies at the heart of it a comment from Maureen O'Gara that the Groklaw community (www.groklaw.net) is "IBM-dazzled" and that ever since there have followed a series of often childish and always hostile comments...from what would appear to members of that same community.
As an neutral but interested observer I am very anxious to know whether it is in any way because that description has hit a raw nerve that this thread has begun to resemble press intimidation. Is the Groklaw site "IBM-dazzled"? Can anyone tell me?
|SilverWave 10/25/04 11:01:18 PM EDT|
"Therefore we at LinuxWorld.com (the Web site) and LinuxWorld Magazine (the print magazine), would like to make it clear that we do not approve, contract, or employ Maureen O'Gara. We have no association with Maureen O'Gara of any kind. This obviously means that we are unable to approve or veto any of the stories that Maureen O'Gara has written, irrespective of their source."
|blinded 10/25/04 07:29:33 PM EDT|
GAAAAAAA - my eyes! my eyes! The last thing I remember seeing was this picture of a trashy, bleach blond, pug who looked like she smokes too much!
The strain from reading her lies was too much, and then the picture....
|MG 10/25/04 05:17:28 PM EDT|
The article mentioned "can't find it". So what can't they find? How would Maureen even know what was said since she was not there and never identifed the source of the statement. Now what stikes me as strange is the statement itself. "Can't fine it". What context was this mentioned in? What was the complete sentence? Could the IBM lawyers be refering to paperwork on their desks? Are they refering to the email presented and read out loud; depite that it was to be protected. What, Maureen, what? You never finished, or for that matter, started the entire sentence. Talk about a sound bite taken to the extreme.
Not that it matters much since SCO gave them their blessing in the first place. It was even mentioned (and even bragged) on their web site that SRV4 was in AIX for the Power chip.
But it matters not. It doesn't matter if SCO owns certain rights to SRV4 because Novell still has a say how it is licensed. In their contract Novell still holds the option to over rule SCO on the way they license UNIX. And they have already excersized this option.
|A. Gabston-Howell 10/25/04 03:12:00 PM EDT|
Hits are nothing tangible until you click-through, and MO'G's name is already synonymous with recklessly ignorant journalism, as it has been for some time now.
Comparatively speaking, LinuxWorld makes the National Enquirer look like it's possessed of the credibility of Time Magazine.
I'll dump LW/all IDG SYS-CON affiliates from my I'net wanderings until they dump MO'G like yesterday's garbage.
|John Hrvatska 10/25/04 01:50:57 PM EDT|
This article contains so many factual errors, that are presented as fact not opinion, that I think IBM could go after LinuxWorld and Maureen O'Gara for libel. In the event that happens, will LinuxWorld pay Ms O'Gara's legal bill, or will she be left to take care of herself?
|Someone with a brain 10/25/04 01:48:15 PM EDT|
Come one people, not even Maureen O'Gara can be stupid enough to really think that people are going to believe what she wrote here, but just think of all the HITS this site is getting.
As many above have pointed out, this site is ladened with ads, ad people just want HITS.
The only problem with this is that when SCO hits the wall, crashes and burns, O'Gara's name will be mud...
O'Gara is not a shill for SCO. She is a shill for this website. Stop reading it and it will go away.
|Satan 10/25/04 01:11:31 PM EDT|
Would you please come home? It has just been heck here without you. We miss you terribly!
|Satan 10/25/04 01:10:21 PM EDT|
Please come home. It has just been heck here since you left.
|Xander Lebrun 10/25/04 10:17:03 AM EDT|
I can't comment on the factual accuracy of this document, but the editing needs a little work. For example, Par. 1: go-round => merry-go-round (I assume, anyway). Par. 2: that sentence really needs to be broken up. If a Cambridge mathematician can't parse the sentence structure fully, no-one can.
Good luck with the new site layout.
|James 10/25/04 05:53:07 AM EDT|
"And SCO's lawyer pointed out that the only piece of code that IBM hasn't come up with - which was highlighted in red - was the AIX-on-Power code - to which IBM's lawyer replied that IBM "can't find it."".
If this is sealed and only the Judge could see the screen for the projector, how did you get the information, Maureen? Were you there, Maureen? Did someone send you the article to sign, Maureen?
I think the point that Linuxworld really has to come to, is that depite the boost in traffic that you'll see from such sensational puff pieces they reduce your credibility as a 'news' outlet. When you jealously describe the people of Groklaw as 'dazzled', despite the fairly even handed reporting from PJ, you just expose a fairly biased nature. That bias put you firmly into the camp of paid propagandist, and I have to say that if 'i-technology' is in the business of being a paid propagandist, then they're unlikely to affect my corporate buying decisions in any other fashion than double-checking any articles I read.
I'm disappointed that a publication that alludes to 'Driving Enterprise Evolution' of Linux appears to be so dedicated to providing a platform for those that would try to destroy it.
|laurent 10/25/04 05:08:24 AM EDT|
1/ I think I have seen an article in the middle of the ads ... Was that a misplacement ?
2/ I also read slashdot and groklaw on that subject. Even if slashdot is known for its lack of depth and finesse, the groklaw article almost called you a liar, pointing to some nice details (like, if the screen was pointed to the judges, how did you get a read on it ?)
|Paul 10/25/04 04:56:24 AM EDT|
You never allow facts to spoil a good story do you?
|John Doe 10/25/04 12:58:28 AM EDT|
This article sure has drawn a strong response.
Open bookmarks, technical, linux, Linux world
|Darl McBride 10/25/04 12:06:34 AM EDT|
Maureen, hugs and kisses. Thanks for spread'n the fud. There will be a little extra surprize for you receive your check.
|erichbf 10/24/04 11:03:50 PM EDT|
LIES, LIES LIES, EXPOSED BY THE MANY COMMENTS ABOVE.
THE GROSS NEGLIGENCE OF THIS SITE IN ALLOWING TOTALLY NONFACTUAL ITEMS TO BE REPORTED TIME AFTER TIME ESTABLISHES A CLEAR PATTERN OF ANTI-LINUX, ANTI-FREE SOFTWARE BIAS OF THIS SITE. DOWN WITH LINUXWORLD!
Maureen O'Gara joins ENDERLE, DIDIO AND OTHERS AS TOTALLY DISCREDITED BLATHERING IDIOTS IN THE PAY OF THOSE WHO OPPOSE LINUX.
|Michael 10/24/04 10:05:29 PM EDT|
Pathetic, just pathetic. My daughter's 10th grade journalism class taught better journalism than McGara displays here. She has become another pathetic SCO shill.
|worstsite 10/24/04 08:28:11 PM EDT|
The bottom line of this site is money. Take a look around. Look at the advertising. It's everywhere! Even the "HOME" link and the LinuxWorld logo [when clicked] gets directed to the Parent company. LinuxWorld and its authors will do or say anything to grab the attention of readers. If you just read O'Gara's past articles you can see that she hasn't been truthful in her journalism. But LinuxWorld still publishes her trash. LinuxWorld has reveiled itself.
|worm 10/24/04 08:13:11 PM EDT|
LinuxWorld is the equalivant of a supermarket tabloid.
|Me 10/24/04 07:10:20 PM EDT|
wow... what an article.. I hope the hits were worth it. Your name has been spread around the world as the new SHILL for SCO. How does it feel?
You do realise that as word spreads that you are now a SHILL for SCO your credibility will hit the floor? Do you care?
Strange thing is that at first I thought you were one of the few journalists that were switched on to SCO's game and made a point of reading your articles. When I heard you on the phone giving Darl a grilling I thought you knew what the game was. Did you? or was it all staged?
Oh well one more journalist to place on the ignore list (along with enderle,didio,lyons etc). Hope destroying all credibility you had was worth it!
|LinuxWorld Blows tbh 10/24/04 05:54:16 PM EDT|
What a pile of crapola.
Get some reporters who can report rather than print some PR they have been handed. Untill then I'll be taking my news from places that care about printing news as in the truth.
Show Maureen the door.
|Bob F 10/24/04 04:34:34 PM EDT|
After reading the article and the Groklaw response, I can only feel sorry for Maureen O'Gara. It seems that she was duped and is left looking like a fool. To the editors, was any representative of your ourganization in the courtroom? Do you stand behind this story or would you rather retract it? If you stand behind it, tell us who your sources are. If you cannot or will not back ut these claims, have some courage and retract the story.
|Darl McBride 10/24/04 04:25:46 PM EDT|
|Franki 10/24/04 04:16:33 PM EDT|
Puff, puff, pass Maureen, puff, puff pass...
You've been hogging the roach again haven't you?
Ok, so when the transcripts become publically available, everyone will know you publish blatant lies.. and take credit for them. Had you said "Darl Mcbride said: xxxxx" you might have a shed of integrity left..
|Andrew Cathrow 10/24/04 02:14:51 PM EDT|
Interesting story, pity it is devoid of facts or foundation. I'd love to hear where Maureen O'Gara got her information from, and what her motivations are.
I'm torn. On one hand I want to watch your site to see if you justify or retract the story, on the other hand I'm lothe to reward your conduct by reading your publications.
|Greg Metcalfe 10/24/04 02:14:31 PM EDT|
I don't know about anyone else, but my boycot of LinuxWorld begins now. Keeping up with the news is tough enough without glancing at sites which publish content without making any effort to check their facts. I'n out of here.
- Source Claims SCO Will Sue Google
- Latest SCO News is Plain Weird
- SCO Claims Linux Lifted ELF
- IBM Tells SCO Court It Can't Find AIX-on-Power Code
- HP Starts Pushing Desktop Linux
- Linux Business Week Exclusive: Linux Kernel To Be Re-Written To Counter Microsoft FUD
- CSN Asks Judge To Unseal the SCO-IBM Court Record
- IBM's Got Its Head in the Clouds
- Noorda's Daughter Committed Suicide
- SCO vs IBM Latest: SCO To Request Unsealing of Most Documents, Claims O'Gara