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.
Now, why would SCO germany pay, if they have SUCH a solid case??
Side Note: Babelfish is aptly named, the translations are usually Babble
Sehr geehrter Toilettenbenutzer!
The question now is can SCO germany be fined for the slander by SCO in the US. After all they are making these comments about an international operating system and comments in the states do effect lionux in the EU.
Come to think of it could every distro with a presence in Germany sue too.
This German court has ordered the German division of SCO to stop making these claims. But what if the North American parent company continues making the claims? Is SCO Germany still liable?
It is $10,800 this time. If they continue to do it the charges will mount. All in all a pretty fair system. Now how will they deal with it is interesting. Considering that information travels pretty freely across boarders. Will this ruling effect statments made by SCO USA or only SCO Germany?
All they really might have to do is send the press releases from the US office.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
it goes like this (only applicable in Countries with preliminary injunctions against SCO regarding their Linux statements):
...
1. call the SCO HQ.
2. ask them about ther 'Linux end user license'.
3. The SCO person will answer "we can't tell you about this because a German court does not allow this."
4. pretend to be surprised.
5. hang up.
6. call again.
7. tell them that you actually read the preliminary injunction and it does not tell anything about the SCO-Linux-License.
8. ask again to send information about this SCO-Linux-License to you
9. listen to their suffering.
and so on.
I did it 4 times and the last time, they forwarded me to the CEO of SCO Germany. It's funny indeed.
My dictionary says that "schadenfreude" is also an english word.
"The wish is father to the thought" auf Englisch.
PS Apparently Americans say "The apple never falls far from the tree", which is a translation from German that English English doesn't have, AFAIK. There are probably lots of these.
What's it going to take to get a similar ruling here in the US??
Making these insane claims like they do is damaging Linux and the reputation of a lot of good people.
SCO needs to put up or shut up.
I hope to see a slew of counter suits filed against SCO and I hope a judge will order SCO to STFU until this is resolved. Anyone that loses money over this should personally sue SCO..
It's just 10.000 euro per offense. So, while it is just unfunny to offend with a web page (just one offense), it would be suicidical to start a letter campaign in Germany...
My journal. Mainly about freedom.
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.
;-)
Yes, this does not mean that they see that they are lying. Only that they did not comply with a court order to quit lying
Seriously, I think this will be viewed as a major setback by SCO. They are trying to coerce people into buying licenses and now they can point to a country which has effectively gagged them. People will become wary of $cos dubious claims.
It seems like "Rufmord" ("character assassination" was the only translation i could find) isn't a crime in the US.
Those comments askin' why german courts could do such things (with such speed) make me believe that...
From the Article
I was initially quite skeptical about these claims, but after talking with several of the principals in the case, I'm not so sure anymore. The history of SCO and Unix is complex.
That's when the copyright controversy emerged. Chris Sontag, a VP at SCO, recently visited PC Magazine's offices with a stack of documents he claims proves SCO's case. Some of these documents are compelling. Sontag explained that SCO owns the copyright to Unix System V. He said that through kernel 2.2, Linux was progressing fine under the GPL. But in the transition to kernel 2.4, code was added that violates SCO's copyrights.
Some of the evidence Sontag showed us is straightforward: Sections of the Linux kernel code relating to the journaling file system and multiprocessor support are identical to the Unix System V code. He offered to show us specific sections of the Unix code, but only under a nondisclosure agreement, which we refused. He said this code was not added to Linux by IBM but by someone else, and that it's a violation of SCO's copyright. I'm not a lawyer, but his argument seems convincing.
PC magazine may not be as relevant as it was a few years ago, but it is still where a lot of people get most of their computer news. I was pretty shocked to read this crap as the first story. I would encourage people to leave some feedback for Mr. Miller.
I still don't understand exactly how Jackson's actions were grounds for an appeal. From the start of the case, Jackson seemed to have no bias one way or another. He didn't even use a computer for doing his paperwork from what I understand. By the end of the trial, he'd had to deal with Gates's Clinton-esque waffling over the meaning of commonly used English words, repeated use of faked evidence, and mountains of testimony of contemptuous monopolous action. Why exactly would forming a negative opinion about a company that had so blatantly flaunted their disregard for the law and for his own court room be a bad thing? It seems utterly natural to me that Jackson would come out of the case with a severe distaste for a company that had pulled such flagrantly disrepectful antics in his own court room.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
If SCO really has that quantity of evidence against Linux, they should be able to let the community know about just one truly illegally incorporated item, while saving the rest for the courtroom. Since they refuse to reveal just one, we might as well assume they actually have none, and will consequently deserve much worse than dinky fines.
Very amusing link. I've dutifully passed it throughout the office :-)
FYI... What I find amusing is the links to SCO's new releases. The supposively thousands of lines of code stolen. Yeah right. They even claimed code written by Allen Cox written for MP support. Boy was he surprised. Probably thought these retards will steal anything.
Has Comcast disconnected your Internet account? Same here. You can read about it at http://comcastissue.blogspot.com
SCO must pay order money
.
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 at 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.
Don't read too much into that. The US HQ did not give the German subsiduary permission (or the details) to substantiate their claims. Given the way they have been behaving up to now (disclosure only to non-specialists and only under NDAs), that was to be expected.
LinuxTag and Tarent did a good job exploiting the mess that this strategy caused the German operation, but that is all this is worth for the time being.
Mielipiteet omiani - Opinions personal, facts suspect.
From the Google Translation, it sounds to me like the claims that they are being fined for appear on their web site. It also appears that SCO is claiming that this was an oversight that will presumably be corrected.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Not died out; in Scotland it is common (though admittedly decreasingly common) to purchase a "poke of chips" which is a "portion of fries".
Of course our "chips" are not very similar to "Freedom Fries". They are much chunkier, less crisp, always made of chipped potatoes rather than potato puree and covered in salt and sauce (which is a thin mixture of brown sauce and vinegar).
Yours Sincerely, Michael.
Can no one get into the NDA SCO evidence session with a hidden camera and get this evidence onto Freenet? Surely they are still showing the evidence to major clients under NDA.
We can't afford to wait for a year and a half for this to come to court to defend ourselves; this is hurting the community dramatically, and we have the right to defend ourselves. If we can get the evidence out and vetted, by whatever means necessary, it will cause the entire affair to dissipate.
I can't imagine any non-governmental victim in the world having a richer capability of obtaining and anonymously posting this evidence than we do.
A short time ago I filed complaints with the FTC and with the WA state Attorney General's office regarding what I consider to be (at this time) false advertising, i.e., claims by SCO to provide some actual benefit in return for licensing fees. In my not-a-lawyer viewpoint, SCO can't make that claim in a solid way until the legal issues surrounding it are resolved; until then, they should at least be required to label the benefit as "speculative."
Haven't heard anything back on either complaint, nor do I necessarily expect to, although I know that SCO will receive a copy of it (at least from WA state if not the FTC). Not that they'll likely care unless the government agrees with my complaint and takes specific action accordingly...
No Laughing Allowed!
Just another thought - For all of you folks that work in consultancies that depend upon and recommend Linux:
:D Of course, now he is slightly leary of open source stuff, and he's really not a PHB, but a pretty reasonable boss.
How has the SCO FUD affected your relations with your clients both financially and in other business relation aspects?
Thats a good question, and is often answered with FUD of its own (both parties) or simply over generalized.
Our company (less than 25 stations) was beginning a migration before the FUD started. The boss approached me with concerns, and is warmer toward MS now. Our biggest concern is applications, not SCO, but the lawsuit has put a small shard of glass in his brain regarding Linux. I don't think it will make a huge difference, but if it REALLY came down to a 50%/50% decision, it may be what puts him over the edge.
After I showed him the article about Ernie Ball here on slashdot, and showed him some of the terms of MS's new licensing (plus the costs) he is not excited about MS. We are running an ANCIENT network, and MUST upgrade in the next few months. He didn't like the idea about auditing, or fines for accidental non-compliance. (we don't use any apps that would have us pirating anyway, just accounting stuff) I will forward to him the article on Office here on the front page as well. We are still using Office 97, and have no reason to upgrade, except maybe to Open Office
In a nutshell: Its making a small difference to us, but MAYBE enough to push the boss away from open source software in general. This is making my job hard, because now i have to look at both MS and Open Source solutions for this network upgrade.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
Don't get me wrong, I think the SCO group are a bunch of foofoo heads that really need to get their asses whiped by the court system.
They've been hit by a court order in Munich which doesn't allow them to spread their FUD... again, I agree with this 100%
Question: does this only apply to servers in Germany or does this also apply to material located on US websites that those resident in Germany can access?
While on the SCO level I don't mind so much, but I can see some far reaching implications of this. Clearly the German goverment has some very diffrent attitudes are censorship then America as a past slashdot story has shown.
I'm sure it's possible to take reasonable measures that only specific countries can access specific web-pages which would solve the problem of possible legit forms of censorship aka court orders removing slander from infringing on other countries choice to make up their own minds.
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.