Jeff Merkey rides again [LWN.net]

Jeff Merkey rides again

Posted Jun 19, 2005 20:29 UTC (Sun) by sbergman27 (subscriber, #10767) [Link]

Jeff,

My post reflects my understanding of the situation, as obtained from several sources back at the times in question; Sources which simply have more credibility than you do. So I'm sorry to say that your statements hold little credibility for me. Just as an example of why I hold this opinion, look at these statements from the Finding Of Fact issued by the judge in the Novell-Merkey case of 1998 ( http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2004102113151262... ):

123. Major testified that even though he has such a close business relationship with Merkey, he has to filter what Merkey says to find the truth, he is unable to control Merkey, Merkey is able to create his own reality which may have no basis in fact, and Merkey is prone to exaggeration.

124. In fact, however, Merkey is not just prone to exaggeration, he also is and can be deceptive, not only to his adversaries, but also to his own partners, his business associates and to the court. He deliberately describes his own, separate reality.

125. Major acknowledges that Merkey does not see boundaries; that if he feels strongly or wants to do something, he does it.

A link to the whole document is available at the above link.

BTW, and this does not relate to the above, did you really sign off your email messages addressed to Microsoft as "You Loyal Servant" as stated In the Finding of Fact? From the document:

158. The depth of Merkey's shift in feelings -- an antipathy for Novell and a commitment to Microsoft -- is reflected in a variety of e-mail messages to Microsoft sent shortly after he left Novell in which he signs off as "Your Loyal Servant."

Just wondering.

Jeff Merkey rides again

Posted Jun 20, 2005 2:50 UTC (Mon) by jmerkey (guest, #30549) [Link]

you are quoting from a PRELIMINARY ruling in a lawsuit that's over 8 years old, not the final adjudication. I don't agree with the judges ruling. I accept the fact you are misinformed and merely spewing Novell manure and propoganda like a parrot from this dusty ruling. Read the lawsuit filings Monday afternoon from Merkeylaw.com. You are in for a real eye-opener.

I accept the fact you are ignorant and misinformed. I will try to correct this for you.

Something final

Posted Jun 20, 2005 23:11 UTC (Mon) by lumbercartel (guest, #30575) [Link]

you are quoting from a PRELIMINARY ruling in a lawsuit that's over 8 years old, not the final adjudication.

By all means enlighten us. A copy of the final adjudication would be a good place to start.

Or is this still going on? Utah court records show the case as closed, so one presumes that there's something final involved.

Something final

Posted Jun 21, 2005 5:02 UTC (Tue) by jmerkey (guest, #30549) [Link]

The settlement agreement is being referenced in the suit. It reverses the preliminary injunction ruling by 180 degrees. All of this crap people have said for 8 years is wrong -- it's a false perception created by Novell employees for the misinformed as a means of unfarily competing.

Something final

Posted Jun 21, 2005 22:02 UTC (Tue) by Stats_for_all (guest, #30598) [Link]

A core complaint of Merkey is that Groklaw posted a sealed document. Interestingly, enough in
1999 he was going to great pains to explain how to obtain "public" copies.

In June 1999, Merkey was in a manic phase after releasing the NWFS file system. On LKML, He
was claiming Novell malfeasance in absconding with GPL code. He claims an incriminating Novell
document was part of the filing. This is represented as "Jennings Memoranda--Exhibit 9" of Case
9704-339 and Merkey's First Motion for S[anc]tions.

When LKML list members asked for documentations, he provided step by step instructions for
obtaining the case file, and when Dax Kelson had difficulty securing a copy he offered to fax one
from Timpangonas.

Selections from the "itoaster" and "semantic innovation" threads
=======================================================
Source 1: www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/9906.3/1125.html
========================================================
Dax,
I also just spoke to the Court and they indicated they have a copy of the
document, and that anyone from the public can come in and get a copy of it.
Novell attempted to place the document under seal, but the court rejected
the request. It's a pubic document. I am going to be down at the
courthouse anyway later today. I will pick up a "public" copy and fax it to
you. What's your fax number

Jeff

=========================================================
Source 2: www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/9906.3/1414.html
==========================================================
.... I've got originality gushing out of every orifice of my body and always have, but this doesn't
mean that I don't see things clearly. No offense, but you
missed the point.

Also, people who truly innovate are routinely HATED and have NO FRIENDS
because they are different and they go against the status quo (something I
experience every day I get up and go to work). Look at Tesla, Edison,
Pastuer, DaVinci. All of these people were hated in their lives and few
understood their profound vision or the long term impact they would have on
the world.
=====================================================
Source 3: www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/9906.3/1112.html
=======================================================
[on obtaining the court record]
Unfortunately, not directly, but anyone from the public can either call,
fax, or go down in person to the 4th Judicial District Court and obtain a
copy. Novell attempted to have this document sealed. To date, it's a part
of the Court record.
.........................
I can tell you that there are several copies of this
document in the hands of reporters who got it from the Court's file, and
they also are sources of a copy of it. This prohibition applies only to us
becuase of what is in the Novell/TRG settlement agremeent -- if someone
other than us gets their hands on it and publishes it, then that's ok. Lisa
Carricabura of the Salt Lake Tribune has a copy, Maureen O'Gara at client
server news has a copy, and the Wall Street Journal also has a copy.
..........................
They hate me and at every turn they try every stunt in the book to destroy
our company -- I am a former Novell Chief Scientist who defected to NT and
Linux. Fortunately for Linux, however, is that I can reverse engineer any
of their technologies and put them on Linux, and they cannot do squat to
stop me. Trade Secrets claims only give the complaining party 18 months of
relief in the US.
...........................

Something final

Posted Jun 22, 2005 1:46 UTC (Wed) by jmerkey (guest, #30549) [Link]

I never authored this.

Jeff

That was a ghost?

Posted Jun 22, 2005 2:00 UTC (Wed) by Stats_for_all (guest, #30598) [Link]

Never authored? Surely you jest.

The LKML header says:
Jeff Merkey (jmerkey@timpanogas.com)
Tue, 29 Jun 1999 13:35:06 -0600
The thread explaining how to obtain the casefiles are
right in the middle of your uploads of the 1.4.3 > 1.4.4 version of NWFS.

If it wasn't you writing, can you explain what the author of NWFS was thinking.

That was a ghost?

Posted Jun 22, 2005 2:49 UTC (Wed) by jmerkey (guest, #30549) [Link]

Nope. I didn't.

Jeff

You Linux hackers are good!

Posted Jun 28, 2005 20:37 UTC (Tue) by yuk (guest, #29782) [Link]

Evidently someone must have hacked into the Timpanogas mail server, faked the headers, *and* faked the uploads of the 1.4.3 > 1.4.4 version of NWFS.

Right.

You are one sad sub-human, Jeff.

-saltydogmn (signed in with Bugmenot)

Something final

Posted Jun 25, 2005 3:07 UTC (Sat) by ECP (guest, #30663) [Link]

Read the lawsuit filings Monday afternoon from Merkeylaw.com. You are in for a real eye-opener.

Um, is this the same filing (final settlement between Novell and Wolf Mountain) that is sealed in the Merkey v. Perens et al suit? Not very informative, if it's sealed so nobody can read it...