THE SCO case is not entirely over (not just yet) and SCO may be faking its financial situation, using bankruptcy as an instrument.
Maureen O'Gara:
The day opens with the discussion about her video deposition. The judge says he's ready to rule on it. The lawyers are allowed to speak, but he's decided to let the parts SCO objected to be played for the jury. From what is said, it's clear that SCO wanted to remove any reference to Groklaw.
SCO's lawyer says that his concern is that the jury will get curious and come and visit. But the judge has more confidence in the jury than SCO does. He's told them not to read about the case, he points out, and they've been good, and when playing the video, they are making sure that the reference in the scrolling text says Groklaw, not Groklaw.com, so chances are they've never heard of it and won't even know it's on the Internet.
By the way, it's never been Groklaw.com. It's Groklaw.net. I own both domains, but Groklaw.com has never been used for anything. I got it because I didn't want anyone else to use it. But when did SCO ever care about facts with specificity?
SCO says the danger is that if you Google for SCO, up pops Groklaw. But the jury has been told not to do that, so that's that. I mean, I have found that logic isn't SCO's strong point, but if the jury went to Google and typed in SCO, whether or not I was mentioned in the trial, they'd still get to me and pretty much every other news outlet in the world. So the issue is obedience to instructions, not what might occur if the jury disobeys.
[...]
To know what part SCO wanted to get removed, we need to go to the PDF, to find the line numbers. So, if we go to page 64, which is on page 11 of the PDF, you'll find a handwritten note that says "Contested" in the margin. That is the spot. And what is on page 64 line 23 through page 65 line 3? It's Blake Stowell's May 20, 2005 email to Maureen O'Gara, with the subject line: "We need you to send a jab PJ's way." Then she is asked who PJ is, and she says "PJ is the purported author of the Groklaw site." And asked what Groklaw is, she says, "It is a website that follows the SCO case -- I should say cases maybe, but...."
So that's what SCO didn't want the jury to hear. Can you blame them for not wanting their role highlighted to the world? Not only does it undermine Ms. O'Gara's testimony by showing her up as a member of the SCO team, so to speak, not an independent journalist, but it makes SCO look terrible, willing to arrange for a journalist covering their litigation to be harmed for no good reason, except that SCO wanted me to be harmed, to damage my credibility and smear my good name.
It's an admission of an abnormal relationship with a journalist, such that their PR executive felt able to make a request like that. I'd so love to read the rest of that email. Someday, maybe. It explains why she was always so nasty when writing about me, I guess, which puzzled me at the time, since I'd never met her or had any dealings with her in any fashion. And I can't help but wonder why SCO listed her on its bankruptcy as being a creditor. Why would SCO owe her $10,000? Perhaps she was asked about that in parts of the deposition we didn't get to see in public. Not that I'd mind if she got stiffed for this piece of commissioned work, as I view it. One does enjoy when the universe is balanced. That's rare in the SCO universe, so it makes it especially satisfying when it happens. All right. Just kidding around.
Oh, and I can speak with some authority on this next point. I am the *actual* author of Groklaw. And I'm very proud of my work, which is probably more than some journalists can say. One reason I am proud of my work is because no one has ever sent me an email like that. No one tells me what to write. No one pays me to write what they want written. That has never happened in the history of Groklaw. And I have never sent a deliberate jab anyone's way, either, on commission or on my own initiative, just to be mean. I've never tried to harm anyone or undermine their credibility unjustly.
And speaking of balance in the universe, the end result of their calculated cruelty was that Ms. O'Gara's credibility as a witness was seriously undermined. Novell was able to use that incident to demonstrate that her testimony was not believable, since she was not independent but rather a SCO ally willing to do something that probably not a single juror would ever consider doing to anyone ever. So while, all things considered, I'd have preferred to skip that event, the jab they sent my way ended up boomeranging right back at them. Funny how life works out sometimes.
The SCO Group is asking a federal judge to order Novell Inc. to turn copyrights to the Unix computer operating system over to SCO despite a jury verdict that said a 1995 sales agreement did not include those assets.
Lindon-based SCO told U.S. District Judge Ted Stewart that the jury did not address the issue that he is to decide when it reached its verdict March 30 in the long-running legal battle over the ownership of software that is used by many businesses.