Dan Lyons Implicated in Groklaw Smear Campaign

I’m now having a look at The SCO Group’s stuff.

On Groklaw:-

The content and commentary of the website (and other evidence) show that Ms. Jones is not an objective commentator, but rather a vehicle through which opponents of SCO have conducted their case against SCO in the court of public opinion, where no gate-keeper monitors the reliability of content.

Keep that in mind. It’s a nice rod by which to measure The SCO Group.

… SCO has not yet served Ms. Jones with a subpoena for her deposition. Obviously aware of SCO’s designs to depose her,

Obvious, how?

Ms. Jones has neither accepted service of the subpoena nor agreed to appear for deposition, but rather appears to have fled and evaded service of the subpoena.

But The SCO Group have just said, “SCO has not yet served Ms. Jones with a subpoena for her deposition.” And they soon go on to say:-

On January 30, 2007, SCO’s counsel issued a subpoena in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, compelling Ms. Jones to appear for a deposition on February 21, 2007. Since that time, a process server has repeatedly sought to locate and personally serve Ms. Jones with the subpoena, without success.

So, when they say, as they did, “Ms. Jones has neither accepted service of the subpoena nor agreed to appear for deposition”: so what? The “process server has repeatedly sought to locate and personally serve Ms. Jones with the subpoena, without success.” It just hasn’t got as far as PJ not agreeing “to appear for deposition”.

Ms. Jones’s reluctance to appear for deposition in this matter is better understood in the context of certain relevant evidence. Indeed, SCO has obtained evidence through discovery of Ms. Jones’s allegiance and financial connection to Novell and IBM, which underscores her motivation to avoid having to testify in this matter.

And then there’s a “REDACTED” bit 😦

Confirming her obvious efforts to avoid the subpoena, Ms. Jones announced on her website on February 10, 2007, that she would be taking a vacation. (Health Break,
http://www.groklaw.net/ article.php?story=2007021013564542 (Feb. 10, 2007, 13:56 EST) (Ex. 2).)

Nope. There’s no such confirmation there. None.

Industry reporters immediately recognized that SCO’s subpoena had precipitated Ms. Jones’s leave of absence; postings to that effect even appeared on her own website.

Let’s pay careful attention…

(See, e.g., Dan Goodin, SCO Bloodhounds Search for Groklaw Author, The Register, Feb 15, 2007, http://www.theregister.co.uk/ 2007/02/15/sco_foe/print.html (Ex. 3);

Okay, let’s look at that article. This looks like a key bit:-

First, SCO lawyers trying to serve Jones with a subpoena were unable to locate her at a home in Darien, Conn. where she was believed to live. Suspicions were further aroused on Saturday, when the author announced (http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2007021013564542) she’d be taking a hiatus for an undetermined amount of time while she recuperated from an illness.

But who, or what, was Dan Goodin’s source? Ah, this might be the answer:-

Following Forbes publishing (http://www.forbes.com/2007/02/13/groklaw-sco-ibm-tech-enter-cz_dl_0213sco.html) the details of the latest hunt, the Linux faithful wasted no time unleashing their indignation.

Ah, Forbes! And look! It’s Dan Lyons’ “SCO Vs. Blogger” article!

Back to The SCO Group’s stuff:-

Posting of John Murrell, Where (and for that matter, who) is Pamela Jones?, Good Morning Silicon Valley, Feb. 14, 2007, http://blogs.siliconvalley.com/gmsv/2007/02/where_and_for_t.html (Ex. 4).)

Okay, let’s have a look:-

Now comes word from Forbes that SCO is trying to serve a subpoena on Jones requiring her to submit to a deposition on some unspecified topics. One problem — Jones is nowhere to be found. In a post on Saturday, PJ said she was taking a “health break” of unspecified length, and acccording to Forbes, the blog editor, who has always tried to keep the lowest of profiles, was not at a house in Darien, Conn., where SCO intelligence agents believe she’s been living.

Dan Lyons’ “SCO Vs. Blogger” article, again.

Again, back to The SCO Group’s stuff:-

Similarly, postings on the Linux-Watch Forum, a website dedicated to “keeping an eye on the penguin,” extensively discussed SCO’s subpoena for Ms. Jones; her refusal to accept service; and SCO’s approaching deadline for effectuating service. (Yes, There is a PJ, http://www.linux-watch.com/ cgi-bin/board/UltraBoard.pl?Action=ShowPost&Board=talkbacks&Post= 239&Idle=0&Sort=0&Order=Descend&Page=0&Session= (Feb. 16, 2007, 03:01:06) (Ex. 5).)

Well, in the exhibit, there’s a comment from a Nigel Kneale, in which he says:-

I find it concerning that, whilst Jones is ready to lecture everyone about how the legal process is strong and valid, she feels that running away from it is the right thing to do when it comes to herself.

And another, in which he says:-

However, you cannot square Jones’ articles about how fair the legal system is (in the face of how obviously unfair it is to the innocent) with the fact that she is very probably on the run from part of the legal process.

So, who is Nigel Kneale? Well, there’s a Nigel Kneale who’s posted some comments on Dan Lyons’ Floating Point blog. Coincidence?

Interesting how it keeps leading back, one way or another, to Dan Lyons.

Anyway, back to The SCO Group’s stuff, again:-

Ms. Jones’s efforts to evade service…

Uh? They haven’t yet shown that she has been evading service. Some evidence of some people alleging – or even, perhaps, just speculating – that she’s been evading service, but no actual evidence of evasion itself. And Dan Lyons seems, prominently, to be the common connection. But anyway:-

Ms. Jones’s efforts to evade service and her leave of absence support the long-held view of industry commentators, for example, that Ms. Jones is connected to IBM’s and Novell’s arguments not simply by the commonality of their expressed opinions of SCO’s claims, but also by financial ties. (See, e.g., Goodin, supra.) Additional evidence coaffims those financial ties. Although counsel for IBM denied on February 12, 2004, that IBM was “causing” any third party, “through funding or otherwise, to make statements on its behalf about the litigation” (Ex. 6), documents exchanged in discovery and other sources demonstrate that Groklaw

That Groklaw?

that Groklaw

That Groklaw???

REDACTED

Poo! But there is a footnote:-

REDACTED

😦

Anyway, there already seems to be a pattern of interesting, anonymous sources saying interesting things to some in the media – such as Dan Lyons – with the result that such things then end up in the media. Then, The SCO Group refers to such things, in the media, in support of the interesting things from those interesting, anonymous sources! (I know, by the way, that this is all familiar stuff to Groklaw readers, but it’s nice to emphasize it, when appropriate.)

But we soon, after another “REDACTED”, get to another interesting bit:-

Indeed, Wall Street Journal

Forbes?

reporter Dan Lyons

There he is again.

recently reported on his website (“Floating Point”) that, according to his sources, OSDL paid “$40,000 to $50,000” to Groklaw between late 2005 and early 2006. (OSDL Payments to Groklaw?, http://floatingpoint.wordpress.com/ (Mar. 27, 2007) (Ex. 13).)

So what? OSDL is not IBM, nor Novell.

In response to an inquiry from Mr. Lyons regarding the foregoing issues, IBM did not deny its knowledge of such payments, or of OSDL’s intent to use monies received from IBM towards supporting Groklaw; nor did IBM deny that it knew the payments would in fact be made to Grokiaw, nor that IBM expected such payments to support the consistent and strident anti-SCO message that Groklaw was communicating to the world. Instead, IBM said only: “IBM does not have any agreements or arrangements with Groklaw or Pamela Jones. IBM, like many other companies, has provided funding to OSDL in the past, and you would have to contact them about how that funding was disbursed.” (Id.) Given that Mr. Mauri of IBM was the Chairman of the OSDL during the relevant time frame, IBM’s statement rings hollow, to say the least. In addition, Novell has had a representative on the OSDL/The Linux Group Board of Directors since 2003. (http://lwn.net/Articles/62243/ (Ex. 14).) Former Novell executive Chris Stone, who worked with the OSDL for Novell in 2003 and 2004, admits in Mr. Lyons’s piece that “paying money to Groklaw ‘would not have been a good thing for OSDL. OSDL was meant to be above the fray, not investing in groups or web sites.'” (Ex. 13.)

So, IBM gives money to OSDL. And, according to Lyons, OSDL gave money to Groklaw. And “Mr. Mauri of IBM was the Chairman of the OSDL during the relevant time frame”. So? Where’s the evidence of the alleged, supposed impropriety in this?

Perhaps it’s time to look at Dan Lyons’ blog article.

(Interestingly, and incidentally, he writes, “It’s odd that PJ would duck a subpoena because she says she’s a paralegal and has a high respect for the legal system.” Dan Lyons and Nigel Kneale – who’s channelling who?)

This seems to be the key bit:-

In late 2005, according to my source, Pamela Jones contacted Diane Peters, the general counsel for OSDL, and asked if OSDL would give some money to Groklaw. Peters discussed this with Stuart Cohen, who was then the chief executive of OSDL.

Between late 2005 and early 2006, OSDL paid “$40,000 to $50,000″ to Groklaw, my source says.

And then quotes his source, beginning with:-

“Diane thought it was a good idea. She talked about it with the IP subcommittee. …”

So, who is his source?

My source is a former high-ranking executive at Open Source Development Labs (OSDL), a vendor-funded organization whose sponsors include IBM.

He also says, of his source:-

My source, who was involved in making the OSDL payments to Groklaw, says he believes there was nothing wrong with OSDL helping PJ. “She needed money on some infrastructure issues. We thought it was a reasonable thing. If she’d asked for half a million that would be different.”

But there’s another source:-

Another former OSDL board member, who also represented a large IT company and spoke on the condition of anonymity, told me he’s not aware that OSDL made payments to Groklaw…

These sources who speak “on the condition of anonymity”, eh?

Oh, and there’s no mention of “Mr. Mauri of IBM”. So why did The SCO Group mention him?

Anyway, it’s basically that IBM gave money to OSDL, who then, according to Lyons’ sources, gave some money to Groklaw. So what? Is that it?

Amazing.

So, in this filing (unless it’s in the “REDACTED” parts), the SCO Group clearly haven’t established – or even shown any credible evidence to support the allegation – that IBM funnelled any money to Groklaw via OSDL.

So, back to The SCO Group’s stuff:-

In addition to funneling money to Groklaw through the OSDL,

An allegation that they’ve just not shown to be true…

moreover, IBM contributes to the site’s internet host.

Okay, this is the really silly stuff about ibiblio. No need to debunk that nonsense again. And anyway, it doesn’t look like Dan Lyons will be making an appearance.

Let’s go on to the next issue:-

Other evidence supports the conclusion that SCO’s opponents in litigation have been feeding information to Ms. Jones for publication on Groklaw. On August 16, 2004, for example, Ms. Jones posted for review on her website “IBM’s Redacted Memorandum in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Breach of Contract Claims.”

Okay, that’s the stuff about different copies of court filings. I won’t bother with that, as it doesn’t look like Dan Lyons will be making an appearance there, either. Same goes for the rest of the document.

So, what do we conclude? Well, if we were to take The SCO Group’s rod, and measure this stuff by that, we’d surely conclude that this is clear proof that Dan Lyons is unmistakably in league with The SCO Group. They’re clearly feeding him stuff, that he’s then pumping into the media, in order to create superficial ‘evidence’ for them to use in court. I mean, look at all those exhibits that lead back to him! And he himself relying on mysterious, anonymous sources. What other conclusion could we possibly draw? It’s not much better if we measure it by Lyons’ rod, either. One might choose a headline such as, “Dan Lyons Implicated in Groklaw Smear Campaign” 🙂

The key question, I think, is who was the anonymous source who told him about the failed subpoena service attempts? Someone in The SCO Group? Who? Why?

Oh, and let’s not forget that bit at the start:-

The content and commentary of the website (and other evidence) show that Ms. Jones is not an objective commentator, but rather a vehicle through which opponents of SCO have conducted their case against SCO in the court of public opinion, where no gate-keeper monitors the reliability of content.

Bearing that in mind, have you read Dan Lyons’ blog, lately?

🙂

Advertisements

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: