Dan Lyons Tool In Smear Campaign?

Let’s see if I can measure this by The SCO Group’s rod.

Let’s suppose you were The SCO Group, that you’re trying to depose PJ, and that PJ takes a “health break”. If you wanted to make it look like PJ was actively, even dishonestly, trying to duck service of that subpoena, what would you do? Might you not take the opportunity to draw the attention of the media to your subpoena attempts and PJ’s sudden “health break”? Might you not, perhaps, choose to bring it to the attention of, say, a journalist who’s already got a thing about Groklaw? You know, just to have the best chance of getting it reported, and reported the way you’d like?

That’s the theory. Now let’s look at the facts.

On “Saturday, February 10 2007”,PJ announced she was taking “a little break from doing Groklaw”. A “health break”.

Three days later, on Tuesday, February the 13th, 2007, Forbes.com published Dan Lyons‘s article, “SCO Vs. Blogger”. In that article, he wrote:-

Now the Lindon, Utah, software company is fighting back by seeking to take a deposition from Jones. Just one problem: They can’t find her.

SCO tried last week to serve a subpoena to Jones at a house in Darien, Conn., where they believe she’s been living, but the attempt was unsuccessful, according to a person close to the matter, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

(Emphasis mine.)

Isn’t that interesting? Only a few days after PJ’s health break announcement, someone, “a person close to the matter, who spoke on condition of anonymity”, tells Dan Lyons about The SCO Groups attempts to serve PJ with a subpoena.

He also wrote:-

On Saturday, she posted an item on her “Groklaw” blog telling readers that she would be taking a “health break” for an unspecified amount of time. She did not mention SCO’s attempts to serve her with a subpoena.

Most interesting!

But does Dan Lyons have, as it were, a thing about Groklaw? Not ‘alf!

The theory fits the facts. The theory, again, is that The SCO Group were taking PJ’s health break as an opportunity to try to make it look like she was actively, even dishonestly, trying to “duck” the subpoena. The facts fit perfectly.

Of course, you might say that it’s all too easy to come up with a tailor-made theory in light of the facts. Yes. And exactly the same can be said of the theory that PJ’s health break was actually a subpoena-ducking attempt. But if we are to consider that subpoena-ducking theory, then should we not also consider the theory that The SCO Group used Lyons in some kind of a smear campaign? Why should The SCO Group, etc, not be measured by their own rods?

According to Lyons, someone, “a person close to the matter, who spoke on condition of anonymity”, told Lyons about the unsuccessful “Darien, Conn.” subpoena service attempt. Who was that person? How are they “close to the matter”? Why did they tell Lyons about it? Why just then, seemingly just after PJ’s health break announcement? Did they contact Lyons, or did Lyons contact them?

I did ask Lyons about it, but he didn’t answer. Maybe I should look at The SCO Group’s stuff.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: