Posted on 02/13/2007 11:11:36 PM PST by HAL9000
And lose her anonymity? Besides, what do you mean by prove? An affidavit would be nothing more than what she's already said, only said to the court. It wouldn't prove anything. It's up to SCO to prove there is a connection, and SCO hasn't.
SCO wants to know who she is so they can dig up as much personal dirt on her as they can. This is definitely a sign that Groklaw, and the facts posted there, are hurting SCO. They are desperate now that their scam is going down the tubes.
Anyone can say anything they want, but to put it in writing and send to the judge would have some actual credibility. Not as much as testifying to the court, but a lot more than what now appears to be hiding.
What's needed is credibility from those saying there's an IBM connection. Absent that, the default is that there is no connection. It's up to the accuser to prove his claims, not the defendant to prove them false. Let PJ have her privacy. She is not party to this fight. She's an observer who posts publicly available court documents and digs up old (and very damning) publicly available information.
It's not like she's Maureen O'Gara, some of whose published information was only available in sealed court documents at the time (or directly through SCO). Maybe IBM should subpoena her. But why haven't they? Probably because they have no need to grasp at straws.
ROFL.
You can quit laughing. eWeek editor Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols just published a story confirming that PJ isn't an IBM front.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.