The SCO-Lyons Connection

I would have blogged this yesterday, but I had a meeting in London. A meeting right next door to the British Library. And then I went to the Tate Modern. I saw some bricks, some Bacon, and a case of not taking the piss.

On Monday, PJ published an article in which she mentions “one of SCO’s lawyers speaking directly to Lyons about the case after Judge Wells told the parties to tone it down.” She refers to a Forbes.com article, “SCO Claims IBM Destroyed Crucial Evidence”, which includes this:-

However, an attorney for SCO says the code deletion is one reason why the Lindon, Utah, software maker has been unable to comply with a demand that it produce examples of allegedly stolen code.

“It’s kind of hard for us to do that,” says Brent Hatch, an attorney with Hatch, James & Dodge in Salt Lake City, “because we don’t have it. It was destroyed before it could be given to us.”

A lawyer for The SCO Group talking to Dan Lyons? Yep. And there’s quite a bit more of Hatch saying things to Lyons in that article.

I could do my usual thing and refer to Lyons’ allegations, suggestions, or whatever they are, of IBM “feeding” stuff to PJ. I could take this as another opportunity to measure Lyons and The SCO Group by their own rods. After all, one could point out that Lyons himself had made it clear that Hatch was telling him stuff. But the thing that this old article really brought to my mind was one of Lyons’ recent, but mysteriously deleted, blog articles.

Just before he deleted the most recent few articles on his blog, he published quite a long one about (if I remember correctly) how okay it was for journalists to get told things by litigants, and that sort of thing. But then he deleted it. Why?

As it happens, someone informed me that they’d saved a copy of that article.

🙂

That means there may be at least one person who’s still got a copy of that deleted article. One wonders if IBM, or the court, might be interested.

I, myself, do not have a copy of that article (in case anyone’s wondering). And I only read it rather quickly, when rather tired, before he deleted it, so I can only remember it rather vaguely.

Anyway, why did Lyons delete that article? Does it have something to do with that Forbes.com article in which Brent Hatch had clearly been telling him stuff? Was it something else? Did Lyons reveal something that he wished to hide? Or did he just realise that it significantly undermined all that stuff about Groklaw supposedly being a propaganda front for IBM?

If nothing else, that old Forbes.com article is yet another example of the significance of Dan Lyons as a channel through which The SCO Group has got its message out into the media. It’s a case of there being a “connection” between The SCO Group and Dan Lyons; that “connection”, in that particular case, being Brent Hatch. Might Hatch be one of the anonymous sources in some other articles?

It just strikes me as interesting that Lyons actually deleted an article in which he wrote about how normal it was, how it was all quite okay, for journalists to get told stuff by litigants. He wrote that blog article, published it, and then, soon after, deleted it. It was just odd, and, to me, this old Forbes.com article just makes it seem odder.

Advertisements

%d bloggers like this: