Welcome!

Open Source Authors: Liz McMillan, Dana Gardner, Sandi Mappic, Bob Gourley, Michael Bushong

Related Topics: Open Source, Virtualization

Open Source: Article

CSN Asks Judge To Unseal the SCO-IBM Court Record

If SCO's Case Proved, It Could Derail The Linux Market and Take The Open Source Movement Down With It

Client Server News and LinuxGram, its sister publication, have asked the Utah district court hearing the SCO Group's $5 billion suit against IBM and IBM's subsequent counterclaims to open all the filings that have been sealed.

SCO's suit claims IBM improperly incorporated aspects of SCO's Unix operating system in Linux. If proved, it could derail the Linux market and take the open source movement down with it.

Our motion to intervene cites the fact that Linux is an inflection point for the industry and that any question of its future is a matter of intense public interest.

However, the public has lost any real insight into the case because of a so-called stipulated protective order that SCO and IBM signed in September of 2003 that has let either of them unilaterally designate discovery material as "confidential."

As a result, a large part of the case has been sealed, especially the substantive and material parts.

IBM is believed to have been particularly free with the seal.

Our motion to intervene contends that the protective order, usually reserved for trade secrets whose disclosure could be competitively damaging, may have been abused and that the material that has been put under seal has never been shown to be really confidential.

It argues that merely protecting potentially embarrassing information that the parties "do not want the public to see" violates the public's common law right of access to judicial records and its First Amendment right to oversee the judicial system.

The nine-page motion, filed today, asks that the protective order be modified to keep the record open going forward or that the parties be required to demonstrate a genuine need to seal each document.

It also asks the court to open any correspondence that SCO and IBM have had with the court that is not reflected in the clerk's file and to open all transcripts of court hearings that have been sealed.

Our lawyers, Jones, Waldo, Holbrook & McDonough, a Salt Lake City firm experienced in First Amendment matters, is prepared to argue our case in court.

  • SCO vs IBM Update: Ball in IBM, SCO Court
  • IBM Tells SCO Court It Can't Find AIX-on-Power Code
  • SCO Finally Makes Groklaw's Mistress Blanch
  • 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 (95) 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
    NemesisNL 12/24/04 10:53:25 AM EST

    " Ooooops. Somebody needs to apologize maybe?"

    Ehm why would I have to do that? Because you want to unseal the court documents? This shows somehow that you do have integrity? I see that you filed together with SCO, them stipulating to jan 7th? So basically you are asking an apology while nudging even closer to SCO? Maybe I'm missing something but from where I stand you've just shown that my remarks are to the point. The fact that you reported sealed information and are now asking to unseal that information does not absolve you after the fact.

    Maybe it's time to try some independant journalism again?

    Jez 12/21/04 09:50:39 PM EST

    "SCO's suit claims IBM improperly incorporated aspects of SCO's Unix operating system in Linux. If proved, it could derail the Linux market and take the open source movement down with it."

    You wish!

    It became clearly over a year back that SCO was lying about millions of lines of infringing code. They never produced any proof, and they've long since stopped making such wild claims.

    Now they are trawling with ever increasing desperation for some evidence - actually *any* evidence - of possible infringement, no matter how tiny. In the event that SCO eventually found some small snippet of Linux that they can prove wasn't quite legitimate, that small section of code would be simply and quickly rewritten. No need to abandon the whole of Linux, let alone open source.

    Doubt they'll have time to find this needle in the haystack though, even if it existed. Tip to SCO: over here in Old Europe it's common practice to have at least *some* evidence *before* suing. Perhaps things are different in the USA, but I'm sure even there judges have limits to their patience. "Oh Your Honour, we were making it up about having millions of lines of infringing code, but please just give us 5 more years of discover and maybe just maybe we'll find a few lines."

    LOL

    trigger 12/09/04 03:51:46 PM EST

    And it's interesting how Maureen hasn't flinched.

    Mark G 12/03/04 12:21:13 PM EST

    are you mental or too young commented on 2 December 2004:

    First, let me say that you don’t appear to have looked into what you are saying.

    You wrote:
    These documents were sealed after the "open" court hearing the buddies of this cyber-person were also present. Her buddies reported to Paul Jones the same exact thing Maureen published. Paul Eggar deleted this report from Groklaw. It WAS an OPEN court! Do you get it?

    First try Paula, not Paul. Second, I would love to know who this Paul Eggar is. Third, it was an open court but what SCO spouted off in court was sealed information and was not to be repeated for the public (something all parties agreed to, including SCO). Forth, what kind of psycho statement is “Paul Eggar deleted this report from Groklaw”? Everything you mention missing is still there. Just go look. Or if you will, allow me since you seem incapable of doing yourself. http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20041023153851359&query=maureen...

    You wrote:
    Now, what will happen is Groklaw's ass will be dragged into this court during the process. Most likely, witnesses will show up and say I reported what Maureen reported in her news story and Groklaw deleted my blog entry.

    Have you completely lost your mind? Groklaw doesn’t have an ass, it’s a web site. Why in the world would they drag PJ or anyone else in court (especially relating to deleting a blog or comment)? Who runs that site; you or PJ? Since when are there laws that state you cannot edit anything from your web site? She can bump, delete remove, hide anything she wants on her own site.

    You wrote:
    That's what's gonna happen. After this cowerd PJ and her mob gang becomes long history, Maureen will continue doing her journalism and may even get a Pulitzer Prize for its outcome.

    Since Maureen is paid to be a journalist, I certainly hope so. Why are you calling anyone a coward? You have never met this person and you certainly don’t know enough them to question whether they are brave or not (not that even matters). Just because you don’t like their cause, doesn’t make them a coward. I’ve never met you either and at least I use my real name, you coward.

    You wrote:
    After PJ crap becomes history, few ignorant cult member attack dogs (some of them behave exactly like one) will need to either find themselves jobs and work like most people do or look for another cult to join. This is not an open source defense fight, this is cyber terrorism against our legal system.

    Again, I love the humor of your ignorance. How in the world did you come to that conclusion? There have not been any attacks against the court or the court system from open source in this case. In fact there are a whole lot more positive things said about the courts and the judges than against. In fact I would say the only real insulting attack against the courts was when a journalist filed to intervene in the SCO vs. IBM case for the public’s interest. First, that is crap and you know it. Confidential information is the property of the parties in the case and nobody else’s. Those parties are IBM, SCO (of course, their attorneys) and the courts. Everyone thinks what it sealed are the smoking guns of the case. What is sealed could be conversations that do not show the “corporate” image they want to project to the public (cursing, bad mouthing other companies and the like; something that every business does). It may be financial information, salaries, payouts and other information that is only for the eyes of the companies and their employees. It could also be code. Since that is protecting trade secrets; again the public has no right to see this. In any case all the parties seem content with this arrangement; so what is Maureen’s real motive. The only thing I can think of is that she feels the courts are doing a crappy job so she wants this tried in public. Sounds like and insult to me.

    You wrote:
    Everyone has the right to have their day in court. Serial murderers have the right for a trial in court. Even SCO has the right to have his case in court. That's why we have a judicial system which works (most of the time).

    Then why does Maureen feel compelled to intervene? Can’t the courts handle this case themselves without Maureen’s 2 cents? Open source is not against SCO going to court; they are against why they are in court. We feel this is a baseless case against Linux from a company that distributed and contributed to Linux and now wants to claim they have been duped by IBM. Duped, maybe yes. Illegal, more than likely no. We shall see when the courts decide this case. Maureen has already made her decision it appears, so the courts don’t need her help thank you.

    You wrote:
    You just don't hide in cyberspace and have your soldiers do a kill job for you. That does not happen in a civilized western society in the 21st century even with the convenience of the internet. Internet does not change the basic rules of the game. You get it now?

    Hide in cyberspace, hmmm. This comes from someone that uses an alias to write comments. Who is hiding again? The rules that you are referring to is called the court system. And it seems to be working fine in this situation. So I fail to see what point you are making.

    Don’t even get me started about getting jobs or other stupid, baseless comments. You think that your post is from a hard working person just because you are against open source and open source posts come from homeless, jobless people (that just happen to know how to use a computer to be able to participate in the first place). I guess they go to Starbucks and use their wireless links or perhaps a cyber café. No, wait, that won’t work because you have to make money in order to spend money. Maybe they are using mommy and daddy’s computer. Or maybe it is you that is using mommy and daddy’s computer since you don’t seem to be making logical statements.

    Ok that was too long winded. But I felt this poster seemed to cover a lot of blanket thoughts regarding the anti-open source movement. And I apologize for the berating, insulting comments to this poster. The intention is to underscore the aggressive and hostile nature of the post. I don’t care for stereotyping or the tone that all pro-open source are bums, hippies with no jobs rabble raisers and anti-open source people are hard working, tax paying, squeaky clean mature adults

    Elektro 12/03/04 09:30:24 AM EST

    SCO and you have lost your credibility. No UNIX user, no journalist believes your stories anymore.

    SCO = daily media fuss and no single proof. It's over, get it. Don't make noise when you got no case.

    Fedora 12/03/04 01:17:39 AM EST

    att: are you mental or too young

    Why are you so angry?

    And... No, the thing here is that the information that was breached was confidential and not for the ears of the court. It was not sealed after the session it was sealed evidence.

    I understand a thing or two about law. I'm in IT but my entire family is in Law.

    idiot

    Daniel Wallace 12/02/04 08:27:16 PM EST

    Did anyone notice that PJ and her Groksters became
    blind and deaf today when it came time to focus on
    and repudiate SCO's legal claim:

    "SCO did not breach the GPL by selling its UNIX
    license. The Court is to interpret a copyright license
    agreement in accordance with general principles of
    contract construction. See Miller v. Glenn Miller
    Prods., Ltd., 318 F. Supp 2d 923,934(C.D. Cal 2004).
    ("Courts apply general principles of contract
    interpretation when interpreting the terms of scope of
    a licensing agreement"); Mendler v. Winterland Prod.,
    Ltd., 207 F.3d. 1119, 1121 (9th Cir. 2000)(applying
    such principles in interpretation of copyright
    license)."

    Hmmmm... maybe it's a CONTRACT after all.

    Daniel Wallace

    Luc 12/02/04 06:28:57 PM EST

    Hi,
    This must be the stupidest 'news' I ever found in my mailbox. A good reason to at last click on this link:

    http://sys-con.com/globaldelete.cfm?email=name@provider.com

    And never waste time on nonsense like this again.
    Luc.

    freecode 12/02/04 06:22:40 PM EST

    Still say the only thing that matters is if all of the files come out in the wash. Let the dirty laundry from both sides hit the street. Then I can make up my own mind from there. If that is successful, then we can all see both sides of the fence and decide for ourselves what is right.

    No spin - just the facts, please.

    Have a nice day.

    freecode

    Andreas Kuckartz 12/02/04 05:50:17 PM EST

    Who is "are you mental or too young" ? Is it Rob Enderle ? At least the style is similar.

    Still Puzzled 12/02/04 05:27:54 PM EST

    Okay so if I understand this aright the deal is that Groklaw's ear- and eye-witnesses at the hearing are saying that none of *them* heard any of what O'Gara reported about IBM supposedly claiming not to be able to find code. If she has committed an offence then it isn't that of lying, but of disclosing something that's true - am I getting this right? Can we not infer, from the way this has played out, that what she reported is actually true - why else all this incredible fuss??? Surely companies are not like individuals, so long as trade secrets aren't involved why don't we have a right to know everything that goes on in a public trial - who pays the judge's salary in the Utah district court, for example: is it IBM or the taxpayer? Surely neither SCO nor IBM needs to go on being protected by the judge now that this petition to open court documents has been made. Please correct me if I am wrong, as IANAL. Seems to me the Groklaw tactics of causing a fuss about this have backfired now that O'Gara has called their bluff and done as they asked by petitioning the judge. No?

    are you mental or too young 12/02/04 05:26:32 PM EST

    to understand things?

    Maureen O'Gara is a legend and an institution in technology journalism. She is not an unknown cyber person who knows who may live in the caves of Afganistan.

    These documents were sealed after the "open" court hearing the buddies of this cyber-person were also present. Her buddies reported to Paul Jones the same exact thing Maureen published. Paul Eggar deleted this report from Groklaw. It WAS an OPEN court! Do you get it? And there were people who were in that court room who did report the same exact information to Groklaw. Groklaw deleted this information. Maureen did not dig out this information from the sealed court files. Groklaw received the same information from th eopen court hearing and intentionally deleted this from the web site, like they always do.

    Now, what will happen is Groklaw's ass will be dragged into this court during the process. Most likely, witnesses will show up and say I reported what Maureen reported in her news story and Groklaw deleted my blog entry.

    That's what's gonna happen. After this cowerd PJ and her mob gang becomes long history, Maureen will continue doing her journalism and may even get a Pulitzer Prize for its outcome.

    After PJ crap becomes history, few ignorant cult member attack dogs (some of them behave exactly like one) will need to either find themselves jobs and work like most people do or look for another cult to join. This is not an open source defense fight, this is cyber terrorism against our legal system. Everyone has the right to have their day in court. Serial murderers have the right for a trial in court. Even SCO has the right to have his case in court. That's why we have a judicial system which works (most of the time).

    You just don't hide in cyberspace and have your soldiers do a kill job for you. That does not happen in a civilized western society in the 21st century even with the convenience of the internet. Internet does not change the basic rules of the game. You get it now?

    Fedora 12/02/04 04:50:54 PM EST

    Puzzled commented on 2 December 2004:

    * Can anyone clarify this for me...?

    Pamela Jones has just repeated over at Groklaw a serious allegation that she and her followers have made many times, namely that Maureen O'Gara has committed some kind of offense:

    Judge Wells certainly was not born yesterday, and she observed what happened at the last hearing, how confidential matters were "accidentally" leaked by one of SCO's attorneys, and now up pops the very reporter who reported some more details about that leaked info, despite apparently not being at the hearing in person

    But my question is this: who decides what is "confidential"? Not PJ, surley. Or am I missing something?

    Well, it's actually the judge and apparently there's more to it than finger pointing but I wasn't there so I'm just making educated guesses about the events.

    Here's the Cole's Notes (just in case you don't know):
    Back in October, one of SCO's lawyers made the mistake of reading part of a sealed document aloud in court. This is when the judge takes matters into hand, seals the transcript and tells the court room that they didn't hear any of the information.

    The deal hear is apparently Maureen wasn't present. I don't know if she was or not because I know I wasn't. Maybe someone saw her there but so far nobody has come forward to state that she was.

    Further to that in Maureen's report she wrte about information that wasn't read aloud from the sealed document.

    I think that pretty much covers it.

    If you want here's a link to Groklaw's take on it:
    http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20041023153851359&query=O%5C%27...

    Dwiget 12/02/04 02:02:51 PM EST

    Why is it that the rantings of Jeff Merkey and Daniel Wallace sound so hauntingly similar?

    an00n 12/02/04 10:58:03 AM EST

    I suspect both SCO and IBM will oppose this suit. SCO definately won't want to unseal all the documents they are keeping hidden from the public and they certainly don't want any links between them and O'gara made public.

    Also once this stuff gets to the court there is a chance the SEC might start to scrutinuze the issue a bit and that would be disasterous for SCO

    harlan wilkerson 12/02/04 08:19:48 AM EST

    Ages ago the non-profit Bell labs fan club of licensees in the USENIX association funded the startup of Rick Adams UUNET. It aimed to compete in the telecommunications market against SUN which was then 20 percent AT&T owned and AT&T. Peter Salas was the executive director at the time, and the USENIX board (including Kirk McKusick) directed him to give UUNET loan guarantees that proved to be worth hundreds of millions instead of an on-going  string of small direct cash loans. UUNET had a three year contract to serve as a DARPA gateway and 50 paying customers before they were finally spun-off from USENIX into an independent for-profit corporation. Within a year of the Berkeley settlement UUNET was purchased and Microsoft's share then was estimated at over 500 million dollars.  

    Many of us are old enough to remember when MOG broke the news that Rick Adams of UUNET, Kirk McKusick, Keith Bostic, and Mike Karels were actually the secret corporate directors behind the company BSDi that USL was suing. All the while, three of them were still serving in their jobs as UCB CSRG staff and as Net2 release coordinators.

    Net2 and 4.4BSDLite couldn't be complied and run, but BSDi was ready with commercial products that provided all of the missing files or functionality. MOG pointed out that by law state employees in California are not allowed to make decisions in which they or their family members have a direct finacial interest - certainly not ones working on federally sponsored contract projects. The federal standard of conduct is pretty much that if it appears like of conflict of interest - it automatically gets treated as if it were one. People like Chris Torek of Berkeley Lawrence Labs (and BSDi) immediately attacked MOG in all of the USENET newsgroups, and she probably hasn't forgotten the experience.

    Daniel Wallace 12/02/04 06:48:44 AM EST

    "Hanging parties are as offensive online as they are
    offline. PJ will presumably be apologizing soon for
    keeping the spurious non-attendance argument alive, as
    the decent person she clearly is."

    Apologize she will not soon do. PJ is not above a
    little "offline" hanging attempt now and then as I have
    experienced first-hand. Her offline attempts at
    manipulating things remove all doubt about her being
    "the decent person" she clearly isn't.

    PJ is slowly learning that what comes around goes
    around. Six months from now, Groklaw, PJ and her little
    cult will be nothing more than a failed blog memory.
    Maureen O'Gara and LinuxGram will still be reporting on
    all aspects of the IBM-Novell Linux business news.

    Daniel Wallace

    Puzzled 12/02/04 02:29:25 AM EST

    Can anyone clarify this for me...?

    Pamela Jones has just repeated over at Groklaw a serious allegation that she and her followers have made many times, namely that Maureen O'Gara has committed some kind of offense:

    Judge Wells certainly was not born yesterday, and she observed what happened at the last hearing, how confidential matters were "accidentally" leaked by one of SCO's attorneys, and now up pops the very reporter who reported some more details about that leaked info, despite apparently not being at the hearing in person

    But my question is this: who decides what is "confidential"? Not PJ, surley. Or am I missing something?

    The transcript may have been sealed, but Maureeen O'Gara (FACT) hasn't disclosed anything that wasn't read aloud at the hearing and surely NOTHING stops the publication or discussion of something heard at a hearing. The only restriction was on the transcript, which O'Gara has not published in any way, shape, or form.

    Please advise, Groklaw participants. So far the argument, including PJ's, relies on a frighteningly non-legal basis, namely that O'Gara wasn't actually at the hearing. Many people weren't in Dallas when JFK was assassinated. I don't recall anyone claiming back then that newspaper reporters should recuse themselves from reporting on the matter unless they were within earshot or the gunfire. Isn't this just a hopelessly spurious argument that does no service to Groklaw's reputation as a venue where intelligent people with more than just a smattering of legal knowledge forgather.

    Hanging parties are as offensive online as they are offline. PJ will presumably be apologizing soon for keepng the spurious non-attendance argument alive, as the decent person she clearly is.

    Mike Battle 12/02/04 12:34:53 AM EST

    There seems to be a great deal of concern over just _who_ PJ is. It's pretty obvious to me - she's the webmistress of groklaw. There are some "10 questions" that are of great importance to those who've obviously never even visited her website, as they're unaware even that it's GrokLaw.NET, _not_ GrokLaw.com. One post stated that the important questions would be answered and the unimportant ones ignored. All 10 of the questions (which are still being repeated) really fall into this latter category. There was a statememt from PJ's early blogs which pretty much explained who she is: a former Micro$oft user who got disgusted with its lack of quality and overabundance of restrictions and vendor-lock, and is now a Linux user. There seems to be great fear that GrokLaw readers somehow follow her, like so many robots or something. This is not the case. I'm a Linux user, too. I was for a long time before I ever heard of PJ. I read GrokLaw to keep up on the latest claims made by sco (as filed with the court, not just whatever Darl comes up with). Frankly, sco's case consists only of what actually gets filed in court, NOT just whatever Darl (or Sontag, or whoever) says (and Maureen slavishly prints without taking the trouble to verify).

    I don't know if you guys think PJ's making up or otherwise faking these documents, but to _read_ Darl's actual case, one is forced to the conclusion that he has none. One day it is about copyrights, until Novell comes around and claims it still owns the copyrights. Then it's about stolen code, until IBM says (and the court agrees) they have to detail what has allegedly been stolen. The next day it's about something else, until that gets shot down. It's become hilarious.

    But I digress. For those of you who are _still_ looking for the answers to the 10 questions, and think they're important, I'll have a go at them:

    1) Is there a real person with a SSN by the name of Pamela Jones who is the author of the Grloklaw web site?

    What do you think, that the documents are gathered up and the stories are written by The Ghost In The Machine? Perhaps "Pamela Jones" is a pseudonym, perhaps not. What does it matter?

    2) Was this "real person" actually employed by ORSM and this "real person" then quit her/his job?

    This alleged person was accused of promoting Linux with one hand while taking money from OSRM with the other, and this was spun as a conflict of interest. PJ dealt with this by breaking the alleged tie to OSRM.

    3) Is the Groklaw web site and its domain name privately listed as owned by OSRM? Is OSRM the owner of the Groklaw web site?

    It's been pointed out that GrokLaw.NET is privately registered. Why is this important? LinuxBusinessWeek.com is ostensibly registered to an outfit called SYS-CON media. Is Micro$oft the owner of that? Because I'd think so, to read advertizements like this:

    "- It is time to port your Unix or Linux application over to Windows? Don't reinvent the wheel - or your code. Get new ideas on how to successfully port Unix and Linux applications, scripts and build environments to Windows using MKS Toolkit for Enterprise Developers."

    Really, when I go to a website with a name like LinuxBusinessWeek, I'm looking for ways to port my _Windows_(tm)(R)(C) applications to _Linux_!

    4) Is pj Daniel Egger?

    Who _is_ "Daniel Egger", who cares, and why?
    Is "Daniel Egger" a "real person"?

    5) If he is, what is the story behind "quitting his job from OSRM and now he is a starving evangelist looking for part time work" at his Fifth Avenue prime real estate office?

    Why would this matter, and to whom?

    6) Was pj ever treated or currently under treatment for multiple personality disorder?

    Was Darl McBride ever treated for delusions, or perhaps crack use?

    7) What is the ibiblio link?

    Uhm, Ibiblio provides webhosting to lots of non-profit outfits, including GrokLaw. Why is this important?

    8) How does all this help open source movement?

    PJ and GrokLaw help the FOSS movement by publishing sco's legal filings, and IBM's answers and counterclaims (and Novell's, and Daimler-Chrysler's, and AutoZone's). If you actually go there and read some of these, you'll see that sco's are mostly vague and incoherent ranting, while IBM's are comprehensible, and AutoZone's are downright delightful to read. Her credibility is based on the fact that all this stuff is a matter of public record, and would be really tough to fake. Maureen O'Gara, on the other hand, does the Internet a great _dis_service by parroting any claim made by sco as factual news, without bothering to check its accurracy. She's been caught in this a couple of times, now, and no longer carries any credibility.

    9) Are all Groklaw followers, the entire community without a single exception stil keeping their heads burried in the sand? Thanksgiving is over. You can come out now.

    Is this a question?

    10) Will OSRM make an official statement, on the record, answering all these questions truthfully and one by one?

    Why should they?

    Conrad Mazian 12/01/04 08:17:48 PM EST

    Wow - this is better than Comedy Central. My stomache hurts from laughing so hard.

    On a serious note, if the documents are all or partially unsealed they will be an interesting read. My personal suspicion is that there won't be anything momentous in them. Most "Trade Secrets" are simple things. If they weren't simple a patent would have been filed to protect them.

    Still we should thank SCO for filing suit. This is more entertaining than anything that's ever happened in IT that I can remember, and I go back to the good old days of punch cards.

    Maureen O'Gara 12/01/04 07:30:40 PM EST

    I decided to interview myself about this late breaking story!

    Thank me for joining me, Ms. O'Gara, on such short notice; may I call you Maureen? Oh please do; it's my pleasure Maureen, thanks for having me. So, how do I feel about this request? I think it's very important for the public to have more information about this case, don't I? I mean, so much is at stake that it would be irresponsible, indeed a dereliction, of journalistic responsibility to not request full disclosure on these proceedings. Oh, I agree completely - the public should know! Yes, exactly! The public needs to know about these intricate details or it could forever cloud the future of Linux, possibly of all Open Source. Of *all* Open Source? Yes, *all* Open Source. Well, the risks are clear then - good luck on the request, Maureen, thanks for joining me. Thanks Maureen!

    Well there you have it from Maureen O'Gara, myself. The public interest isn't being served. Tune in next time when I ask myself, how could I be any more beautiful than I am now. Until then, ciao!

    David Finch 12/01/04 06:59:36 PM EST

    This is some funny sh*t. Keep it coming while I search google your advertisers' adwords and click them.

    hkb 12/01/04 06:52:48 PM EST

    The public has a right to know.

    This case is really about Linux, and Linux is written by "the public". As a (small-time) kernel contributor I want to hear the sealed information relating to arguments in a court case that is attempting to damage the reputation of a project that I am a contributing author of.

    jaydee 12/01/04 06:50:15 PM EST

    Perhaps Maureen O'Gara is getting nervous that she has been sold a pig in a poke by SCO and now wants to see what is
    what.

    I like to be charitable.

    Darl should remember "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned". If he
    has made a fool of MOG he may have to watch out.

    who cares 12/01/04 06:44:02 PM EST

    Who cares if certain documents are sealed or not? All it means is they
    are not available to the public. The judge sees them. SCO sees them.
    IBM sees them. If there is anything in there that gives SCO
    ammunition to destroy Linux, F/OSS, and the world as we know it,
    they already have it. All their paid shrills like O'Gara (and note how
    the famous deep thinker Ken
    Brown
    has re-surfaced) are doing is pumping up the stock price.

    After all this time, SCO has yet to make good on a single threat. No
    millions of lines of literally-copied code. No avalanche of suits against
    end-users. No kicking that upstart Linux's butt all to heck. Just more
    toothless gumming and railing. It's mildly entertaining, like
    watching someone bite the head off a bat, but that's about all.

    killjoe 12/01/04 06:29:37 PM EST

    This thing is going to open up a can of worms.

    1) Maureen O'G is going to be deposed.

    2) Her articles and publications will be scrutinized by the court and hopefully the SEC.

    3) She is going to be asked to reveal her source for the sealed information (she published some of it).
    4) All the SCO documents will be unsealed as well as the IBM docs.
    5) More depositions! All kinds of people who had nothing to do with the case will be open to deposition. This list will surely include other writes for the publication such as Enderlee as well as other employees of SCO, Canopy and (hopefully) MS.

    xx 12/01/04 06:20:14 PM EST

    The judge, SCO and ibm can all see the sealed documents. When there is information that harms linux every party allready knows its. We don'y need Maureen for it. When SCO had some information what can be really damaging we Allready should know about it.

    freecode 12/01/04 05:03:08 PM EST

    Go for it. Unseal ALL of the sealed files. Including SCO Group's sealed files. I think that is the only way - let everything come out in the open - not just one side, but BOTH sides. I see no reason for anyone to object.

    Hell, I want to see SCO's sealed files too. Maybe we should file suit for that as well.

    WhateverNext 12/01/04 04:59:29 PM EST

    It was the highly vociferous Groklaw community, or members of it, that insisted Maureen O'Gara should file to have things opened up. Now O'Gara's done it, suddenly it's an unpopular move. Go figure! From the sidelines this looks a little hypocritical. Well okay, a whole lot hypocritical. Seems her detractors aren't prepared to remember it was their idea in the first place!!

    Mark G 12/01/04 04:52:37 PM EST

    This is a smoke and mirror show brought to you by Ms. O'Gara. The public is not demanding this (we would all like to see all the dirty laundry of this case; but it is not our right to). Ms. O'Gara is demanding this for her personal agenda alone. She is using the same argument that the paparazzi uses when they stick a camera in some famous person’s face walking out of a restaurant.

    She says this is about public interest. If that were her motive and the "sealed" documents contained the smoking gun she seems to think they do; then why press for those documents? Is she implying that the courts and Judges are so dumb that they cannot do their jobs? Is she implying she knows more than Judges or Lawyers? Is she saying that the law doesn’t matter if the public is against it? What exactly does she hope to achieve with this stunt (and yes, it is only a stunt and the courts will show her that you don't step on the law just because it’s good press)?

    Another glaring point; she should be more interested in seeing the Novell information than IBM. Because if Novell is found to retain the copyrights and IP of UNIX; the IBM case gets tossed because it is a contract dispute. Novell has the right, according to their contract with SCO, to overrule SCO in these matters. That much even SCO cannot dispute

    Dave B 12/01/04 04:38:23 PM EST

    "...take the open source movement down with it."
    Great attention grabbing headline...
    Rediculous notion it would ever happen.
    If laws were passed due to ruling in SCO favor the only thing that would do is provide India, China or country an open door to become the open source leader of the world, effectively killing software innovation in America.

    wpgabriel 12/01/04 03:54:37 PM EST

    I feel like the information should be made public, mostly because I think it would be great for the public to see that SCO's case is baseless and help clear the name of Linux before decision-makers decide to choose something other than Linux. I also don't see the point of making this case so private, there doesn't seem to be any sort of really good reason to make a case private (strong mafia/mob witness protection type issues, etc.). So, let's hope this filing succeeds.

    anon 12/01/04 03:46:48 PM EST

    While I'm no fan of O'gara, I must say that she has a point, albeit for possibly the wrong reasons.

    The essence of the democratic proces is the transparency of that process. Is there something hidden that we as private citizens would be best served by knowing?

    There may not be, but I for one would like the judge in this case to look upon this request seriously and reveal those elements of the case which it is in the public interest to reveal.

    WPG 12/01/04 03:17:28 PM EST

    We all know that M.O. is a stooge, but don't forget to boycott the products advertised on Sys-Con web pages! Email advertisers and let them know you don't support shill "reporters" and that it reflects poorly on them.

    Frank 12/01/04 03:13:29 PM EST

    "If you ignore the loud mouths and their religious outrage and ask who Maureen is, you should call any technology CEO and find out what they think about Maureen. Start with Bill Gates, and keep calling Scott McNealy, Larry Ellison, Palmisano, Ballmer, Coleman..."

    Now ask those same CEOs starting with Bill Gates... who has had more impact MOG or PJ. Let's see 35 years vs 2 years.

    Anonymous 12/01/04 02:54:01 PM EST

    "did you think technology news started 18 montsh ago with pj's blog? grow up, get a job, read a lot."

    Ha! I'm obviously older than you think, have a job (network admin for some time now), and read quite a bit. I'd put my knowledge up against yours and Ms. O'Gara's any day (assumeing you aren't Maureen). You want to talk about tech experience? Ever programmed with punch cards? Ever used a PDP-8? PDP-11? VAX? VMS? Even know what those are? I've seen a lot of wannabes in my time. Throwing around computer lingo on a website with "Linux" and "Business" in the name doesn't make you an expert in the tech industry.

    Jeroen van Iddekinge 12/01/04 02:44:49 PM EST

    'IBM is believed to have been particularly free with the seal.'
    (Info From Groklaw)

    First SCo has the same amount of sealed documents as Ibm (event more 18 to 17) and some of the IBM documents are sealed beceause they are a response to sealed sco documents en also the judge orderd it. Hey Maureen if you blabbering arround please do first research, your statements are worse than adti.

    Googlefight Results 12/01/04 02:42:16 PM EST

    Hey, anyone checked the results of a Googlefight between Groklaw and Maureen O'Gara? I have. Guess who wins by a margin of 330,000?

    Anonymous 12/01/04 02:41:37 PM EST

    Let's get a head count: how many people think Maureen is full of crap?

    How 'bout this story where she talks about getting her wife to run Linux?
    http://www.linuxbusinessweek.com/story/34336.htm

    This is another article that gave me a good laugh and highlights her lack of any journalism abilities.
    http://www.linuxbusinessweek.com/story/46800.htm

    I think Linux Business Week keeps her around to write this crap so people will comment on how terrible it is and generate ad revenue.

    Mark G 12/01/04 02:40:28 PM EST

    how old are you anonymous?

    What exactly is your point? So what if CEO's or anyone else addresses Maureen by her first name? That proves nothing. I've heard judges and cops refer to criminals by their first names? Are they best buds? No. Does that give the criminal credibility? No. referring to someone by their first name does not mean anyone trust them. And no industry CEO will step on toes if they can help it; especially when the journalist is taking their side?

    Trust is built up over time; which you seem to think that 30+ years reporting requires us to respect Maureen. That means nothing to me because I've been around that long and have seen the good and bad of industry reporting. Remember that America trusted Richard Nixon from all the years he was in public service. During the scandal many Americans still could not believe that he did what he did. Even to this day there are people that believe Mr. Nixon was innocent.

    Trust takes time to build; but takes only a split second to lose.

    Alan Wagoner 12/01/04 02:40:09 PM EST

    I'm not surprised by the questionable facts the article reports. It's the lousy writing that bothers me. Where did Ms. O'Gara learn to write?

    If any of you middle school journalism students are watching, this is a shining example of how NOT to write an article.

    --Alan
    (The opinion expressed herein is mine, and is in no way connected with my employer, my church, or my god.)

    how old are you anonymous? 12/01/04 02:26:51 PM EST

    did you think technology news started 18 montsh ago with pj's blog? grow up, get a job, read a lot. you will learn many things by yourself. unless the names of your friends are Gates, Ballmer, McNealy, Ellison, etc. then you should ask them too of course. Muareen has been on a first name basis with every CEO you can think of for more than 30 years, you did not know that either did you?

    Head Count 12/01/04 02:24:03 PM EST

    Can we do a quick head count: how many of us here were just recently urging Maureen O'Gara to get the court transcript unsealed...now she endeavors to do just that, and that's wrong too. No, it's worse than wrong. How does anyone win with us? Do as we say - or we'll intimidate you and ridicule. Get things unsealed. Oh by the way, if you *do* as we say we'll come after you anyway. It doesn't show the community defending IBM in a very good light. Where are our principles?

    PJ notably doesn't scoff. She says she welcomes Maureen's initiative because she's dying to read everyting if it is unsealed!

    Anonymous 12/01/04 02:17:01 PM EST

    Maureen has a 35 year track record...So what? Does automagically mean she's a good tech journalist? I guess researching before reporting is beyond her grasp. And I'd be more than happy to check with my friends at MS, Sun, and IBM to see if anyone in the IT industry has actually heard of her. I won't be holding my breathe for a "yes".

    troublemaker 12/01/04 01:55:05 PM EST

    Wow, this is like soap operas for geeks. Maybe this is how we get more chicks into computing.

    Steve Wampler 12/01/04 01:33:07 PM EST

    Wow - another lesson in overhyping an article!

    Let's see, the fact that proving SCO's case will
    cause problems for Linux and others - just *what*
    does that (vacuously true, incidently) have to
    do with unsealing the court documents?

    Exactly nothing! That claim is *completely
    unrelated*.

    Sigh. Nothing to see here, move along.

    Maureen is not running for a political office 12/01/04 12:58:11 PM EST

    Maureen is not running for a political office.

    She does not need supporters. She has been reporting tech news for more than 35 years. Everyone knows her and who she is. The industry who has been reading her stories for more than 35 years has the highest respect for her and what she writes, including thousands of her breaking news stories. She reported Chris Stone was out at Novell two months before this became news on the street. She does not, if you check her 37 year track record, have a religious agenda. I'm sure in her 35+ years in the business and as a third generation journalist she has seen much worse than the recent attacks she has been receiving from the Groklaw mob crowd.

    If you ignore the loud mouths and their religious outrage and ask who Maureen is, you should call any technology CEO and find out what they think about Maureen. Start with Bill Gates, and keep calling Scott McNealy, Larry Ellison, Palmisano, Ballmer, Coleman, and any seasoned CEO you can think of and ask them what they think about Maureen O'Gara and her reporting. If you find out one single tech CEO has less than the utmost respect for her professional track record, I'm sure her publishers will not think one second to pull the plug on her. That's what I think about Maureen.

    D.P. Corotto 12/01/04 12:45:50 PM EST

    Better yet, send each advertiser a note (or phone them) and explain why
    you're now boycotting their magazine/product/service. Anyone leveraging
    Maureen's tripe to try to promote their stuff is too dumb to deserve my
    business...

    AJ 12/01/04 12:39:29 PM EST

    The SCO debacle will affect Linux only if SCO wins. If SCO wins, companies that use Linux are more likely to drop it to prevent any sort of legal action (regardless of indemnification), kernel developers will have to rewrite "infringing" code, and companies that sell Linux (SUSE, Red Hat, etc.) will take a hit. However, I believe firmly that SCO will lose and become a giant laughing stock in the IT world. The SCO-Microsoft connection has been made many times and it's become quite obvious this is all being done to discredit Linux. In my opinion it's SCO's rep that's being discredited seeing as how SCO (formerly known as Caldera) distributed it's own version of Linux for quite some time and helped form UnitedLinux.

    Also, I don't know if it's nessecarily a proprietary vs. OSS thing. Look at Oracle. A very popular and successful proprietary database, yet Larry Ellison (co-founder and CEO) is a big Linux supporter.

    Mark G 12/01/04 12:13:21 PM EST

    It says "private" you moron:

    Well of course it does. It is extremely rare to associate and email to an actual person when you register domains. That is because if that person leaves, you have top reregister.