Welcome!

Most Read Technology Reporter For More Than Two Decades

Maureen O'Gara

Subscribe to Maureen O'Gara: eMailAlertsEmail Alerts
Get Maureen O'Gara via: homepageHomepage mobileMobile rssRSS facebookFacebook twitterTwitter linkedinLinkedIn


Article

IBM Tells SCO Court It Can't Find AIX-on-Power Code

SCO's Lawyers, Another Young Thing From Boies, Schiller & Flexner Was Smooth Enough to Impress Even Groklaw's IBM-dazzled Observ

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.

More Stories By Maureen O'Gara

Maureen O'Gara the most read technology reporter for the past 20 years, is the Cloud Computing and Virtualization News Desk editor of SYS-CON Media. She is the publisher of famous "Billygrams" and the editor-in-chief of "Client/Server News" for more than a decade. One of the most respected technology reporters in the business, Maureen can be reached by email at maureen(at)sys-con.com or paperboy(at)g2news.com, and by phone at 516 759-7025. Twitter: @MaureenOGara

Comments (131) View Comments

Share your thoughts on this story.

Add your comment
You must be signed in to add a comment. Sign-in | Register

In accordance with our Comment Policy, we encourage comments that are on topic, relevant and to-the-point. We will remove comments that include profanity, personal attacks, racial slurs, threats of violence, or other inappropriate material that violates our Terms and Conditions, and will block users who make repeated violations. We ask all readers to expect diversity of opinion and to treat one another with dignity and respect.


Most Recent Comments
desktopJeff 10/24/04 02:09:25 PM EDT

I don't disagree with the value of printing articles from different viewpoints than the average linux admin/user, but...

I place any responsiblity for the accuracy of the article at the feet of the editor of LinuxWorld. Just because it's the internet, doesn't release him/her from standard journalistic standards of verifying an author/article.

LinuxWorld has lost it's value as a resource for a quick bit of hits.

IANAL 10/24/04 01:47:29 PM EDT

Is it not against the law for journalist to publish things they knowingly admit are false as truth? Is not linuxworld, or Maureen herself or both parties legally liable for slandering IBM's good name? Seems like IBM should come after Linuxworld and or Maureen O'Gara directly. Journalists and Editors must be held to some standards of honest and accountability.

Bring on the lawsuit and shut this microsoft funded lie machine down for good.

Beekman 10/24/04 01:29:11 PM EDT

It is a shame that linuxworld.com has an editor who is so irresponsible as to publish such misleading journalism. It would appear that this site's sympathies do not lie with linux, or in reporting the truth. I would advise all other readers to stay clear of this site.

Eric 10/24/04 12:09:13 PM EDT

All I have to say is: Are you friggin' kidding me? This article is absolutely laughable in its gross negligence of reporting the truth.

I'm not even going to go over whats wrong with this article (I feel others, as shocked as I am, have covered it substantially)... I will say that its just unbelieveable that any editor would read this over and allow it into their publication. And have someone, on their payroll, whose writing ability is worst than the trashiest gossip-mongers. This is just a blatant misrepresention of the truth, period... I certainly hope there's some shakedown at LinuxWorld with regards to this. I can't imagine anyone, much less LinuxWorld, would be proud publishing factless SCO rhetoric like this.

So now, is this what LinuxWorld has come to? It's sure shaping up to be the online National Enquirer for the Linux Community -- the website is awful, the writing is atrocious, and you are subjected to some of the worst-designed ads anywhere online. I'd rather not be here, honestly... so I won't.

A nun, a mouse 10/24/04 12:07:05 PM EDT

LinuxWorld ought to check her 'sources' on this one. If she's gone from journalism to outright lying and spinning for SCO, she has no place in what is supposed to be an informational medium.

Seeker of Truth 10/24/04 11:46:48 AM EDT

Allowing microsoft shills to spew blatant lies reveals your total lack of credibility and your hidden anti-linux agenda.

G Stocke 10/24/04 11:39:24 AM EDT

This is an absolutely horrible website. I could barely read the article, nevermind understand what the heck this is talking about.

Nevermind the fact that is an unbalanced editorial presented as "news".

FireHer 10/24/04 11:13:23 AM EDT

Please fire this unreliable dumb woman. It's not the first time she writes without any clue, ethics, credibility or even simple intelligence.

Either you are a serious publication (without Ms O'Gara) or you play in the same league as the people who claim that the earth is flat, evolution is a lie, and no one ever walked on the moon.

Choose yourself.

bill gates 10/24/04 11:04:28 AM EDT

Good job Maureen, remind me to hire you for our next anti-trust case on court.

soon2bexsubscriber 10/24/04 11:03:09 AM EDT

Get rid of thei idiot or next time subscribtion comes up I will be saying goodbye to your magazine. Got it?

Albert Godel 10/24/04 10:41:02 AM EDT

Why is it no one remembers her at the hearing, maybe she was never there and got her information from SCO lawyers. So much for unbiased and truthful reporting. So Maureen you have managed to discredit yourself with the Linux community, you can always report for SCO or write for Fox news... never a shortage of biased news in the world.

Not Your Business 10/24/04 10:29:07 AM EDT

Like many, I saw the link to this article on /., and decided to look for myself. Talk about regrets!

It was bad enough reading the obvious FUD and seeing the blatant inconsistencies. Having since seen coverage from people WHO WERE ACTUALLY AT THE HEARING, it's patently obvious that this so-called article is a tissue of distortion and outright lies.

It's not bad enough that this site is ugly as sin - why would anyone endure the truly lousy format to read the works of 1,000 monkeys? (Although that output might be more interesting than 'stories' like this one.)

XeRXeS 10/24/04 10:14:12 AM EDT

"I am prepared to give her the benefit of the doubt and think that she did not write anything she thought to be inaccurate, but she was lied to. Wether she should have done more research or not is a different matter."

It's not a different matter at all. If you want to take the story of only one company involved in a legal dispute, it should be clearly stated that "SCO said/alleges/claimed" these so-called "facts", not trying to imply that it is first-hand truth. This is utter FUD from an obvious hack, who was either bought off, or just too useless to do any real research. Either way, Linuxworld should *not* have published this story. As if the *awful* ad-filled site design was not bad enough to wade through, we get this despicable example of SCO lies and FUD.

I will not continue to read this site while people like that can post such obvious lies, and I will urge others to do the same.

nelson 10/24/04 09:44:48 AM EDT

This article is from Linuxgram, which is put out by G2 Computer Intelligence, Inc, a company founded by O'Gara. Her contact information, including phone, fax and email address is found here at http://www.g2news.com/editors.html

roam 10/24/04 09:25:22 AM EDT

It's just too coincidental that LW keeps on dabbling in anti-Linux FUD (albeit hidden amongst other spiel), and now this artcle. The logical conclusion is not a pretty one, but with everything else going on in LW, it's just a sad state of affairs.

SCO are on their way out, good riddance, and I hope the fools who support them, even in the media, are on their way out too.

Posted on Groklaw 10/24/04 09:19:55 AM EDT

----cut here------
I have done a small amount of research on Maureen O'Gara.
First impressions are that she is based on the east coast (I may be wrong here) so it is unlikely she would have treked over to Utah for the hearing.

In her writings she does not seem to be anti-Linux at all, though she is not scared of controversy. In fact she seems to embrace it whenever she has the opportunity. Like many journalists her priority seems to be to gain readership rather than recite facts (the story mentioned here is labelled "hot" on one of the pages referring her articles and has had a large number of viewings for her).

Just before the SCO shenanigins started she seemed to have prior knowledge of what was going to happen suggesting she had contacts in SCO/Canopy at the time.

Given the above I think it is more than likely she was given the information from the SCO/Canopy headquarters and, what with the story being nice and controversal, she wrote it up. I am prepared to give her the benefit of the doubt and think that she did not write anything she thought to be inaccurate, but she was lied to. Wether she should have done more research or not is a different matter.

Also, to be fair to her, her article is not anti-linux. In so far as much the issue in the 3rd amended counterclaim is if IBM improperly put code into AIX for powerPC that originated from Monterey, then this has absolutely nothing to do with Linux. I agree that McBride will probably spin it to suggest that Linux is unclean because of it, but he does that for anything. Also I admit that it would help finance SCO to cause more trouble should the court find in their direction on the issue, however I do not think that would actually effect Linux adoption much. SCO have ranted and raved like Rumpelstiltskin so much that anything short of "Yup - Linux is SCO's" from the court is not going to effect things much. And all that is hardly Ms O'Gara's doing anyway.

I think we are reading too much into the article and are being unfair on Maureen O'Gara. Although this article is inaccurate, and she may regret writing it, I do not think we can be judgemental to her just over it (we all make mistakes), and I think the correct thing to do is to ignore this article as a one off and move on, only to return to it if Ms O'Gara makes a habbit of relaying SCO rubbish or of drumming up readership by disrupting the FOSS movement.

My 2c worth
----cut here------

Smirky McStick 10/24/04 08:59:53 AM EDT

I call Shenanigans!

Jan 10/24/04 08:39:17 AM EDT

What an incredible propagandist stunt. This piece of garbage has nothing to do with journalism. Were it some personal blog, this specific entry would be mocked and frowned upon, but coming from a supposedly "authority" news site like this one, it's just low. As reported, Groklaw was eyewitnessing the hearing and Ms. O'Gara was not present. This article is sheer fabrication. Shame on you.

nick 10/24/04 08:29:48 AM EDT

Maureen, please pass around what you are smoking, you have reached realms unknown to us, thus we are waiting for enlightenment you have attained.

Matt Drudge 10/24/04 08:12:28 AM EDT

Yayuh! This is the kind of reporting I love best! Eyewitnesses now claim Maureen wasn't even in the courtroom and that IBM never said it couldn't find the code! Sounds like "Developing News" for the Drudge Report! Thanks a pantload!

Calus 10/24/04 08:01:56 AM EDT

Fed up with crap articles like this?

Let the management know: lwmeditors@sys-con.com

Bilbo 10/24/04 06:41:05 AM EDT

I smell desperation:

SCO reading out emails sealed by the judge in open court.
Maureen O'gara printing rubbish that will be corrected by eye witnesses within hours. And linuxworld printing it.

I can understand SCO's action, they are about to go down big time, falling a little harder is no big deal. I don't think Maureen O'gara has ever cared about her reputation, but why the panic from linux world.

Obviously what ever is causing the desperation is more important than linuxworlds reputation.

Is the desperation from those that have attempted to convince the market linux has IP problems. Who sets the linux world editorial policy, that is the burning question.

Bernard Devlin 10/24/04 06:08:01 AM EDT

How can the people behind this site be so dumb? As if we don't have enough good news sites about Linux that anyone would freely visit this disfigured site for pleasure or information... the only way they are going to be able to drive people to this site (and their adverts) is by this kind of flame-baiting story. I won't be back here, and I'm sure this site will be dead from lack of advertising within a year.

Virgin 10/24/04 04:43:58 AM EDT

Maureen O'Gara is behind this awful deception. Bad Maureen, bad. She will indeed be punished severely. You should do the honor. First you must tie her down. Then spank her. Yes, spank her, over and over until she apologizes. Then you must spank me. Yes. And then the rest of us.

Fletcher Reede 10/24/04 03:42:58 AM EDT

Editors of this site,

Your journalistic ineptitude is stretching into commercially motivated fraud, contempt of court and community loathing.

Whatever it takes to pull eyeballs, I s'pose.

Visions of prostitutes and Judas dance melodramatically in my thoughts.

AndrewV 10/24/04 02:34:16 AM EDT

Dear Maureen,
Can one look forward to a follow up artice where you justify your comments? You know, where you state that you were there and heard this yourself? Or perhaps you can attribute this to a "source" who was there?
Inquiring minds really want to know.

Cheers,
--
AndrewV

Tom Holmes 10/24/04 01:43:16 AM EDT

Why print things that are not the truth. Why comment on a court hearing where the court has sealed the transcript? Since you apparently did not go to the hearing, who fed your this information? Was it SCO? If so the court might be interested in talking to you as they were not supposed to leak anything out from the hearing.

Groklaw Reader 10/24/04 01:13:08 AM EDT

A letter to the LinuxWorld editors, also posted on Groklaw in its story on this article (http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20041023153851359).

----cut here------
Dear Linuxworld Editors:

There seems to be some confusion about some of the statements in Maureen
O'Gara's article "IBM Tells SCO Court It Can't Find AIX-on-Power
Code"
(http://www.linuxworld.com/story/46800.htm).

According to a post on Groklaw
"A Bit of the Blarney -- or Worse? -- About 'Lost' Code", Saturday,
October 23
2004 @ 03:38 PM EDT
(http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20041023153851359), this article may
have factual holes in it. Related links are:
Motions for Today's Hearing, Tuesday, October 19 2004 @ 09:21 AM
EDT(http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20041015212103661),
Judge Wells Takes It Under Advisement, Tuesday, October 19 2004 @ 03:10 PM EDT
(http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20041019151048217), and
Today's Hearing in SCO v. IBM - Eyewitness Reports -- What Does Any of This
Have to Do With Linux? Tuesday, October 19 2004 @ 04:27 PM EDT
(http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20041019162736936).

I'm sure you trust your writers to write factual, unbiased news articles. You
have to. However, you also have an obligation to do some fact-checking. As
the transcript of this hearing is sealed, fact-checking may be difficult.

Under the circumstances, LinuxWorld has an obligation to notify its readers
that:
1) it did check the facts and stands behind them
2) it could not check the facts, but will do so when they can be properly
checked
or
3) it did not do fact-checking

Please post an addendum to this story indicating you have checked the facts or
you will do so when it becomes possible to do so. Also, please consider
replying directly to the Groklaw story, "A Bit of the Blarney," and
point to
the addendum.

I hope I can continue to count on LinuxWorld for unbiased reporting of news
important to the Linux community.
----cut here------

Richard 10/24/04 12:26:13 AM EDT

another great case of bad journalism.. no research full of lies..she should work for FOX NEWS

the antifud 10/24/04 12:10:47 AM EDT

Who owns this site? I think there was an article before LinuxWorld.com buyout that Microsoft is going to purchase it. I think O'Gara is either seeking more revenue from advertising OR has is being paid by Microsoft/SCO OR shes tring to get Microsoft's attention so they can buy her. What a gold digging wh-re!

Read between the lines. How can she know what she doesn't have access to? This story is bogus or she has the inside details or made it up.

Shonky 10/23/04 11:24:21 PM EDT

Maureen writes:

"I'm really sorry everyone. I want you all to know that this was really intended as a satire piece, but the editors didn't realise and have published it as fact."

If the above is actually from Maureen, I have to say: "Please, give us a break!". This is not what satire looks like.

thegrendel 10/23/04 11:22:24 PM EDT

Thank you, Maureen O'Skiba, for yet another well-written,
unbiased article. Are the nominations for this year's
Pulitzer Prize closed.

medbob 10/23/04 11:15:40 PM EDT

Bogus...
Perhaps you should consider writing for Kerry....

Maureen O'Gara 10/23/04 10:52:24 PM EDT

I'm really sorry everyone. I want you all to know that this was really intended as a satire piece, but the editors didn't realise and have published it as fact.

It was really hard to keep a straight face while writing it, and I was obviously hoping for the same reaction from my readers.

Oh, the ads here are satire too. Have you read the M$ TCO one? It's a hoot!

Daniel Schmidt 10/23/04 10:45:58 PM EDT

This is a joke right? It must be the 1st of april or something... no?

I would have expected this news site to at least check it's stories before releasing them. It makes me sad and sick to see people like Maureen O'Gara giving reporters a bad name.

Daniel Schmidt

Darkside 10/23/04 10:45:41 PM EDT

The current litigation is between IBM and The SCO Group.

Project Monterey was between IBM and the Santa Cruz Operation.

The SCO group and the Santa Cruz Operation are two different companies. It is false and misleading to claim that IBM's Project Monterey contract was with SCO.

You've made this mistake before, and it's been pointed out before. Your persistence can not longer be attributed to ignorance or error.

nelson 10/23/04 10:37:57 PM EDT

Ha-ha. Linuxworld, your stories are funny. And you don't even realize that most of the people coming here to post their angry responses to Maureen are blocking the ads. Where are the positive responses from the happy ad readers?

Hettar 10/23/04 10:25:49 PM EDT

Wow! Very interesting. Do you ever feel bad about writing and publishing blatant lies like this? Every other Report I have read of the hearing was by people who had actually been there and they all say the IBM said no thing. Indeed since SCO is only know trying to change the case (again) so that AIX on PPC is actually an issue, I doubt that they have even asked IBM for this code. This Site like your reporting is full of blatant lies aimed at misleading people. You and anyone involved in this site you be ashamed.

William Gates 10/23/04 09:25:22 PM EDT

Thanks for the Pro-SCO article Maureen. I'll be sending you another $20,000 soon. Keep up the good work.

Bill

Thom Campbell 10/23/04 09:02:53 PM EDT

Ms O'Gara,
Did you attend the hearing? Those who did do not appear to recall you being there. If you did not, then what could possibly be your source for a hearing whose transcripts have been sealed? Can anyone else corroborate your the "facts" in your article?

Wishing you well,
Thom Campbell

R. Growler 10/23/04 08:55:22 PM EDT

So Maureen, you are lying again I see. You *know* this is not
Maureen O'gara's World(tm)(c)? Where the sky is green?

Oh, and remove the picture please, it only works on Darl!

BTW: people, do what Epaminondas said. I have, and my (close to) 120.000 users have (oh, and linuxworld is blocked at the firewalls for pornography until the pic of Maureen is removed)
Have a nice day :)
-RG.

Dent 10/23/04 08:52:55 PM EDT

Here's Groklaw's response [http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20041023153851359].

It seem Maureen is flat out lying. She didn't attend the hearing and the transcript of the hearing was sealed... Where did she get her info? All the witnesses who attended the hearing and reported back to Groklaw say that there is no "lost" code.

How can this SCO shill still be employed?

Linux Guy 10/23/04 07:19:18 PM EDT

Another site built on Linux and open-source software:

www.royalrecipes.com

It runs better than on Linux than Windoze and is about a million times more stable, too.

Long live Linux, PHP, and mySQL!

Kevin B. 10/23/04 07:16:56 PM EDT

Maureen O'Gara is a befuddled, no-talent hack. I suspect the last computer she used had a Fisher-Price label on it. LinuxWorld, if this is the best you can do, goodbye. Bunch of wankers with a page that has more ads than content.

Epaminondas 10/23/04 05:47:50 PM EDT

<< Joe Smith commented on 23 October 2004:

* A poorly done article on an ugly site. I won't be visiting this website for news ... too many ads. >>

No problem, Joe - I am not seeing any ads on this site.

To browse this site without ads:

(1) Browse with the Firefox web browser:

http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/

(2) Add the two following Firefox extensions at the click of a mouse:

Adblock

http://update.mozilla.org/extensions/moreinfo.php?id=10

Flash Click to View 0.8 (aka FlashBlock)

http://update.mozilla.org/extensions/moreinfo.php?id=326&vid=993

Restart Firefox and you can browse the internet wtihout ads.

Browsing the Internet without ads is very restful - kinda like walking from Times Square through the heavy (quieting) doors into the depths of a good reference library.

Shhh . . .

Epaminondas

major 10/23/04 05:47:23 PM EDT

Hey Maureen, SCOX only asked for intel based AIX distributions. Why should they have produced the Power version?

Looks like the bright young lawyer forgot what the not so bright old lawyers had asked for.

Flabbergasted. 10/23/04 05:31:19 PM EDT

Unbelievable brazen falsehoods. Let's see:
1. 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.

A. IBM produced everything it was ordered to produce. The hearing dealt with SCO's discovery wish list, not IBM's non-compliance.

2. ...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.

A. There is no Third Amended Complaint period. SCO has petitioned the court for leave to amend their complaint yet again and have provided the court with a draft of their proposed Third Amended Complaint. But the court has not granted their petition. Thus, there was no argument whatsoever about a "Third Amended Complaint". Moreover, since their is nothing in the public court records, how does Ms. O'Gara know the contents of SCO's proposed "Third Amended Complaint"?

3. 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)

A. There is NO basis for stating that SCO owns any SVR4 code or any other Unix code for that matter. The Unix codebase copyrights are owned by Novell. SCO is nothing more than a licensing agent for that code. Claiming that SCO owns Unix code is the same as claiming that the toll booth clerk owns the highway.

4. The title "Fraud in Linuxland"

A. Nothing in this article supports the accusation of fraud regarding Linux. Even if IBM had overstepped it's agreement when it produced a version of IBM/AIX for the PowerPC that has nothing to do with Linux.

Linuxworld is a laughing stock on the net. The editors, reporters and production department are not even third-rate. To call Maureen O'Gara a reporter is comical. She even fails as a shill, because she has all the credibility of the Iraqi information minister. Next, I expect her to report that IBM's board of directors and Linus Torvalds are commiting suicide in the Utah desert.

Mister Obvious 10/23/04 04:51:06 PM EDT

Now, now, folks--there's no benefit to getting worked up over this trollish little exercise. Ms. O'gara is only pushing your buttons to get attention. If you giver her too much, she wins.

Please, treat this "article" with appropriate respect--a hearty belly laugh and a long sigh!

Oh, Maureen--your such a kidder.

Ha!

Joan F. Kurry 10/23/04 03:59:52 PM EDT

R I D I C U L O U S

It smells Microsoft FUD miles away.

Andreas Kuckartz 10/23/04 03:37:57 PM EDT

Maureen O'Gara writes about a "Third Amended Complaint discussion" and the content of a "sealed Third Amended Complaint".

1. So far no "Third Amended Complaint" has been filed. See: http://www.utd.uscourts.gov/documents/ibm_hist.html

2. There was no court hearing about a "Third Amended Complaint". See: http://www.utd.uscourts.gov/documents/ibm_hist.html

3. Maureen O'Gara is as separated from reality as Darl McBride and Jeff V. Merkey.

4. The name "LinuxWorld" should be changed to "StockManipulatorsPhantasyWorld".