Slashdot Mirror
SCO Fined in Munich For Linux Claims
nordi writes "heise.de reports (in German) that SCO Germany has to pay a fine of 10,000 Euros (~10,800 US$) because they kept on saying that Linux contains stolen intellectual property of SCO. In May a German court had decided that SCO Germany must not continue making those claims." Yes, it's auf Deutsch, so break out babelfish.
SCO Germany must pay 10,000 euro order money. Basis for the decision of the regional court Munich I is a provisional order of the enterprise Tarent and the LinuxTags against SCO. thereafter may not the enterprise not maintain, of Linux contains illegitimately acquired mental property of SCO. against it is to SCO on its homepage to have offended, why Tarent had requested an order procedure in June
The court accuses negligent behavior "according to a report of the Tarent GmbH SCO" with the enterprise of its firm homepage . There the statement is to have read be also after the provisional order that "final users, who use the software Linux for protection injuries of the mental property can be made liable by SCO".
Tarent lawyer Till hunter sees itself confirmed in the decision of the court that the statements of SCO as "substantial business-damaging expressions" are to be regarded, which concern a "extremely sensitive range". With unproven statements expense the expense third a business with the fear one make. With SCO Germany to time anybody for a statement cannot be attained; to request on a procedure stress Hans Bavarian, Managing director of SCO Germany, already beginning June opposite c't: "our intention was to hold back us conformal." The offence against the provisional order did not happen deliberately. ( anw
That's just a fine for non-compliance with a court order. Suing SCO over defamation or damaged business is a different matter - and something that is likely a lot easier with this fine as a background.
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
Please don't misunderstand this fine. This is not about the (doubtful) statements of SCO.
SCO GmbH in Germany was only fined because they did not fully comply with a preliminary injunction which told them not to repeat certain statements.
They are being fined for continuing to make claims, when the german courts said they must not until the case goes to course.
The are in violation of the injuction made against them spreading FUD while the case runs, which was brought about by linuxtag.
It's a little more complicated than what was stated. A Linux group sued SCO in a German court for an injunction to stop SCO from making its claims without proof. The Linux group probably wanted to see the alleged proof and thought that SCO would turn over it over once it was sued.
The fact that SCO has still refused to show its proof is pretty good evidence to me that they don't have any.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
Please remember, this is not about the SCO case at all, but about false advertising. SCO was saying "linux users have to pay" even though this is an untested legal theory - it is for these misleading statements they now have to pay. If they later are proven to be right, they still made allegations out to be proven fact, which is a no-no in advertising, as far as Germany is concerned.
Bear in mind the order restraining them from making such claims is only a prelimenary injunction. That means all is still to play for, though the likelihood of a judgement against SCO Deutschland is very high indeed.
SCO employee? Check out the bounty
To make a short article shorter (and enlighten the German-impaired):
SCO Germany got fined 10,000 EUR because they transgressed against an injunction ordering them to remove from their web page any allegation that Linux contained ill-gotten IP of SCO's. Apparently they overlooked something when cleaning up their pages.
However, there was no judgment on whether or not these allegations are correct, so put the champagne back in the fridge, guys.
It has to be added that the sum that the court had deciced to charge against violation of the court decision was set to 250.000 Euros. The reason that it is only 10.000 Euros is that SCO "forgot" to remove all statements from their HTTPS server as well, thus not complying to the court decision. As this was only seen as a minor offense against the court decision, the sum was reduced.
Broker Recommendation: Strong Sell
http://biz.yahoo.com/z/a/s/scox.html
SCO Germany has to pay a 10000 Euro fine. This decision by the Landgericht Munchen I is based on a preliminary injunction against SCO, granted to the Tarent company and LinuxTag. According to it, SCO may not claim that Linux contains illegally obtained intellectual property from SCO. SCO has allegedly violated this on its homepage, therefore in June Tarent asked for a trial.
According to a Tarent GmbH statement, the court accuses SCO of "negligence" in running its company's homepage, which, even after the preliminary injunction allegedly read: "End users who use the Software Linux may be held liable for violations of SCO's intellectual property."
Tarent attorney Till Jaeger sees the court's decision as confirming that SCO's allegations are "massively business-damaging statements" concerning an "extremely sensitive issue." Unproven claims were used to do fear-induced business on the expense of others. SCO Germany is currently not available for comment. In early June, asked about the trial, SCO Germany CEO Hans Bayer emphasised: "Our intention was to comply." and that the violation of the preliminary incunction had not been intentional.
As has been pointed out, they are not being fined for lying. They are being fined for making certain claims after being told by the court not to. And those claims haven't been determined as lies by the German court, but they have been determined as unsubstantiated. Basically if SCO doesn't try to prove their claims properly, they aren't allowed to make them, and fined if they do so.
SCO Germany has to pay a 10'000-Euro fine. The basis for this decision of the court of the district of Munich is a preliminary injunction of the company Tarent and Linuxtag against SCO, according to which the company [SCO] may not state that Linux contains illegally aqcuired intellectual property of SCO. SCO is supposed to have violated this ruling on its homepage, and Tarent had requested a ruling against this in June.
According to a communication of Tarent Ltd. the court accuses SCO of "negligent actions" regarding its corporate homepate. It's supposed to have contained - even after the preliminary injuction - the claim that "endusers who use the software linux can be held responsible for violating intellectual property of SCO".
Tarent's lawyer Till Jaeger is of the opinion that the courts decision confirms that the behaviour of SCO is "massively economically damaging" which concern a "very sensible area". Business with fear on the back of third parties is made with unproven statements, continues Jaeger. Nobody could be reached for comment at SCO Germany; when a ruling had been requested at the beginning of June, Hans Bayer, CEO of SCO Germany, said: "It was our intention to conform to the preliminary injunction". The violation of the preliminary injunction had not been intentional.
Not to quit lying, the court order is more specific:
The court order is against claiming that Linux contains SCO intellectual property without presenting any evidence. SCO Germany now complies with that: www.sco.de doesn't mention IP concerns with Linux at all. They were fined 10000 Euros, because they overlooked a few files, which they removed a few days later. Only 10k Euros, because it was clearly an accident - they overlooked files accessible through https.
SCO Germany is free to turn around and claim IP infringement if (and only if) they include evidence.