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.

Comments

We can only hope

[mao che minh]

$10,800 USD seems a bit low, considering that SCOs lies and threats have probably damaged Linux companies and consultants many times that amount. While the US legal system appears impotent in the face of this slandering and despicable business tactic, Germany is obviously prepared for this nonsense. Since the effects of SCOs claims have the potential of effecting companies in just about every nation on Earth, I say that Germany fine them appropriately, and even get the European Union in on the action.

At the end of the day, companies like Microsoft and SCO won't be stopped by the US. The best we can do is waste a couple hundred million in tax dollars on a useless court case that is headed by a puppet judge. We can only hope that the EU will save us, a body that acts swiftly against vil business tactics, and usually solidly (just look at how they dealt with Nintendo).

Re:We can only hope

[Richardsonke1]

It's more important that they have seen that they are lying. I wouldn't care if they fined them $1, as long as it has been taken to court and they have shown that their claims are baseless. That damage is in the past, stop it from happening anymore in the future.

Re:We can only hope

[tomhudson]

Sure, the fine may be low, but this is a first fine. Wait until they get hit again .. and again ... and again.

Also, it gives us something to point to and say - "These guys have been fined by a judge for their lies. Take that, Shithead^H^H^H^H^H^HMcBride" :-)

All in all, this is great news.

Re:We can only hope

[JanneM]

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.

Re:We can only hope

[presroi]

$10,800 USD seems a bit low, considering that SCOs lies and threats have probably damaged Linux companies and consultants many times that amount.

You were right if this fine was for messing around with the Linux community. This fine is only because SCO did not follow a preliminary injunction promptly. Certain statements were shown on sco.de *after* this injunction came into effect.

If you speak German, you might check out the original injunction (one of many) a this place here.

Re:We can only hope

[presroi]

It's more important that they have seen that they are lying.

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.

Re:We can only hope

[peterprior]

Mod this parent up... I can see a lot of people making this mistake...

Re:We can only hope

[Richardsonke1]

Sorry, I can't ready German very well ;-) And the babelfish translation was quite obfuscated.

Re:We can only hope

[Zeinfeld]

At the end of the day, companies like Microsoft and SCO won't be stopped by the US. The best we can do is waste a couple hundred million in tax dollars on a useless court case that is headed by a puppet judge.

Jackson a puppet of Microsoft? What are you on? Can I get some?

Jackson was the best thing that happened to Microsoft, Boies was the next best, but not by intention. Jackson was so gratuitously biased that there was no way the appeals court could possibly have backed his decision.

Having watched David Boies in action in the Microsoft, Florida and Napster cases I am convinced that his reputation is vastly over-rated. He was responsible for botching the Microsoft case, he fought the case on the weakest complaints, not the strongest ones. In Florida he let the Bushies roll right over him. His arguments in Napster were profoundly unconvincing.

Re:We can only hope

[presroi]

A German saying is:

"Der Wunsch war Vater des Gedankens"

"The was father of the thought"

(I don't know if the translation left the meaning alive but I think we are all waiting for a judge who finishes this SCO behavior by negating SCO's claims)

Re:We can only hope

[richie2000]

Shouldn't that be: "The wish was father of the thought"?

Re:We can only hope

[LWATCDR]

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.

Re:We can only hope

[Anonymous Coward]

"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.

Re:We can only hope

[Fnkmaster]

I would say that $10,800 seems low for willfully failing to comply with a preliminary injunction, which is what this fine is for. The fine for ignoring court orders should be a heck of a lot higher than that for a decent sized company. Of course, there's still presumably the potential for much larger damages later if they were found to commit whatever the German equivalent of slander is, thereby damaging many people's businesses (are civil and criminal proceedings combined in Germany as in many other European jurisdictions?).

Re:We can only hope

[Anonymous Coward]

The ammount of money doesn't matter. The real and only aim of this judgement was to create a precedence. This has been done and now companies whose image has been damaged by SCO are free to go and hunt for the big money in german courts referring to this precedence. The benefit are faster trials and less money such companies have to spend.. That's the way it is.. not in the US.. but in germany.

Re:We can only hope

[Brahmastra]

A better fine would be $10,800 each for every Linux user they sent an extortion letter to.

Re:We can only hope

[presroi]

argh. you were right.

I asked my favourite dictionary for "wunsch" but i did not copy the result to the /. form. Shame on me.

Re:We can only hope

[4lex]

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...

Re:We can only hope

[autopr0n]

Having watched David Boies in action in the Microsoft, Florida and Napster cases I am convinced that his reputation is vastly over-rated.

Lets not forget this one, Boies is Lead Counsel for SCO.

Re:We can only hope

[Karamchand]

While the US legal system appears impotent in the face of this slandering and despicable business tactic, Germany is obviously prepared for this nonsense.

Sorry to say that but that's because Germany - and most other European countries as well - don't have such a twisted view on "freedom of speech".

Re:We can only hope

[mr_z_beeblebrox]

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.

Re:We can only hope

[AEton]

$10,800 USD seems a bit low

On the contrary! That's 15.45 Linux desktop licenses. Hey, imagine a Beowulf cl--just kidding.

Re:We can only hope

[arivanov]

This also allows any international company to politely ask SCO to send the licensing request to their German IT department. Or move the IT department mailing address to Germany for the same reason.

So any "licensing" request can be directly forwarded to court and converted to a payment request.

Re:We can only hope

[azzy]

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.

Re:We can only hope

[Valdrax]

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.

Re:We can only hope

[azzy]

If the German courts start to fine on the basis of idiocy, we'd all better watch out.

Re:We can only hope

[presroi]

This also allows any international company to politely ask SCO to send the licensing request to their German IT department. Or move the IT department mailing address to Germany for the same reason.

Well, $700 USD per CPU are nothing compared to German income tax :)

So if you sum everything up, surrendering to SCO might not be the worst outcome from a fiscal standpoint.

SCNR.

Re:We can only hope

[hype7]

This also allows any international company to politely ask SCO to send the licensing request to their German IT department. Or move the IT department mailing address to Germany for the same reason.

So any "licensing" request can be directly forwarded to court and converted to a payment request.

IANAL, but that tactic would not work. Different countries have different laws - say, for example, that SCO was successful in the US. An American company could not try to sidestep it by telling them to send it to Germany, as the US subsidiary is bound by US Law.

-- james

Re:We can only hope

[critter_hunter]

It matters little how convincing the arguments are, as long as the arguing is convincing. If Boies manages to get so many high-profile cases, he certainly has some power of persuasion, at least over PHBs...

Re:We can only hope

[ichimunki]

BS.

The U.S. has laws against lying to the public in order to damage the reputation of one's business competitors or to inflate one's stock price or any number of other things. In fact, one company, Red Hat, is taking advantage of said laws and has filed a court case against SCO in a U.S. court. Any number of other companies involved in Linux-related work could do the same.

Additionally, the German court didn't just decide one day to prohibit this speech. The injunction was the result of a lawsuit filed by private parties in Germany (LinuxTag, if I'm not mistaken), and the fine is for violating the court's order, not so much for the content of the speech.

Re:We can only hope

[Scholasticus]

What are you on? Can I get some?

It's called "crack." Or haven't you been reading /. lately?


"These broad lances--they are coming into fashion." -Atli Admondson, upon being stabbed

Re:We can only hope

[tomhudson]

Okay, lets look at this in more detail.

1. There was a request for a preliminary injunction agains SCO in reference to claims SCO had made that were contested;
2. They (SCO) were given the opportunity during the hearing for the preliminary injunction to show cause as to why an injunction should not be issued;
3. More specifically, they had the opportunity to show that there was at least SOME factual basis to their claims (they were not obliged to present complete proof at this point, as it was just a prelim, just sufficient proof to allay a preliminary injunction) ;
4. They declined to show ANY proof that there was any basis in fact for their claims;
5. The court, upon failing to see any evidence that there was any legitimacy to SCOs claims: granted the preliminary injunction

Remember that the level of proof required to avoid a preliminary injunction is low, and that SCO failed even that. SCO could have presented proof, requesting that it be sealed by court order, but they didn't. Why? The most reasonable assumption is that they are lying, that the proof doesn't exist, and that admitting to this would end their pump-and-dump scam.

Look at the opposite case: if they HAD presented proof and the preliminary injunction had been defeated, Darl could have had a third volumn of press clippings to dump onstage boasting of his "relevance". Do you think such a press-hungry monkey wouldn't have jumped at the opportunity? In other words, they have been caught in a series of lies, and it's all starting to unravel. Any other interpretation is contrary to the evidence at hand :-)

Re:We can only hope

[tlk nnr]

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 ;-)

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.

Re:We can only hope

[polaar]

or in this case: "The fish was father of the thought"?

Re:We can only hope

[Vlad_the_Inhaler]

a loose translation is: like father, like son.

Re:We can only hope

[presroi]

SCO could have presented proof, requesting that it be sealed by court order, but they didn't

Because SCO GmbH Germany was
a) not allowed to do so by order of SCO Inc.
b) SCO Inc. did not give SCO GmbH Germany these small pieces of evidence.

(yes, I spoke to the SCO GmbH Germany CEO, see other thread for details)

The first part of your statement is perfectly right. I just want to add that

1. There were many requests for an preliminary injunction, not just by LinuxTag (and they all succeeded)
2. In all cases SCO has to be read: SCO GmbH Germany.

Re:We can only hope

[Rogerborg]

>It seems utterly natural to me that Jackson would come out of the case with a severe distaste for [Microsoft]

And if he'd just had the simple bloody common sense to keep his comments to himself until after the case, that would have been fine. The problem was that he gave interviews during the case, in which he made his feelings clear. He quite literally pre-judged Microsoft. He was trolled, and he bit.

Re:We can only hope

[Vlad_the_Inhaler]

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.

Re:We can only hope

[BrokenHalo]

As has been pointed out, they are not being fined for lying

Mind you, 10,000 euros is probably more than their company's worth if we discount their antics to pump the share price.

Re:We can only hope

[gweihir]

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.

Indeed. And they can be re-fined and the fines can be made higher if they repeat the statements again. They basically where fined because they disobeyed a court order. The original court order was issued because the judge(s) thought it likely that the claims SCO made where untrue and damaging to the competition.

SCO can use legal means to get the court order lifted, but then they would have to show proof for their claims, which, it seems, they cannot.

Re:We can only hope

[insomniak1]

"That damage is in the past, stop it from happening anymore in the future."

I don't think that it's as simple as the above statement. Sure, the most visible damage would have happened initially, but the thing is that there are 'rolling' reprecussions that ripple down the time line as affected companies try to recover from the damage done.

For instance: A small organization that was working with a consultancy is considering Linux and a series of service agreements. With all the fear-mongering happening due to SCO's claims, the smaller organization is scared away from Linux and decides to stick with a vanilla Microsoft business environment. What happens?

1. The organization takes a substancial financial hit to pay for the usual Windows license agreements (OS, applications, etc.)
2. The consultancy they're dealing with is out of luck.
3. Open Source projects aren't given their fair chance.
4. If this happens too often, the consultancy could face more lost contracts, etc, etc.

As for preventing it from happening in the future, I completely agree. While some may claim that it infringes on their rights to restrict business practices, there are limits. I've noticed, here in North America, companies have too much freedom to do pretty much whatever they want, whenever they want, to whomever they want, for almost whatever reason. I'm sure many (if not most) of you share the same sentiments.

Re:We can only hope

[space_biker]

vil business tactics?

Did you mean evil or vile? Maybe shorthand for evil and vile? Or is it an accent as in: "Ve vil cvush you!"

Re:We can only hope

[insomniak1]

Just another thought - For all of you folks that work in consultancies that depend upon and recommend Linux:

How has the SCO FUD affected your relations with your clients both financially and in other business relation aspects?

(There, I used the term 'FUD.' *sighs*)

Re:We can only hope

[netsharc]

Haha, if that is true, it would be the most fun slashdotting of a server!

Re:We can only hope

[aborchers]

They are trying to coerce people into buying licenses and now they can point to a country which has effectively gagged them.

SCO and Scientology. What a scary thought...

Re:We can only hope

[idiotnot]

Except that the appeals court did not overturn *any* of his findings. The only thing that was overturned was his sentence.

But yes, Boies is a lousy attorney. He's your run-of-the-mill ambulance chaser with annoying TV ads, except that he's nationally-known. I submitted a story about how he's about to be barred from practicing in Florida, but it was rejected. As for his performance with Al Gore's recount fiasco, if he'd called for a uniform state-wide recount, that would have happened. And Bush would have still won (read the NY Times and AP investigations afterwards). The call for a selective recount was the fatal flaw there.

Re:We can only hope

[DF5JT]

"All they really might have to do is send the press releases from the US office."

Don't underestimate German judges: *Anything* in publication that refers to SCO in Germany and SCO's claim that Linux infringes on their IP will be seen as a way to circumvent the injunction and will immediately be subject to another hefty fine. While the 10.000 EUR has been rather mild because SCO Germany simply overlooked some files on the webserver, any renewed attempt to address the IP question in Germany will definitely be regarded as a willfuct act of ignoring the injunction.

In that case we are talking *big* money.

Re:We can only hope

[Gleef]

I've heard unsubstantiated rumors that David Boies has backed away from the case personally, but the case is, of course, still being handled by Boies, Schiller & Flexner. As circumstantial evidence, notice that most recent legal statements from the SCO camp have come from Mark Heise, a less important partner in the same firm.

I would not argue with people calling Boies overrated, myself.

Re:We can only hope

[eer]

At the end of the day, companies like Microsoft and SCO won't be stopped by the US.

Interesting point, that - haven't colonial wars usually been fought by national reprisals (via privateers) against the commercial interests of Imperial-granted monopolies (ala The India Company, The Hudson Bay company, etc.?)

In the era of Imperial America, it seems somehow appropriate that nations would use their own courts to reign in the commercial excesses of Imperialist American Global interests.

Re:We can only hope

[sanders_muc]

That is because the amount of the fine is based on the amount in controversy of the specific lawsuit. As the latter is a claim of a quite small company for damages due to unfair business practices, the amount of damages will be small, and so the fine is. But if this company wins the lawsuit not only they'll get damages paid but probably also hundreds of other small linux companies who have suffered in exactly the same way from SCO's unfair business practices. After all, SCO did not warn consumers of one specific competitor, but of all Linux-selling competitors. So, although there are no class-action lawsuits in German law, it might become important. [IANAL]

Re:We can only hope

[paule9984673]

The original court order was issued because the judge(s) thought it likely that the claims SCO made where untrue and damaging to the competition.

Actually, IIRC, SCO didn't defend itself against the injunction in the German court so the injunction was issued not on the basis of probability of the claims being true but by default. This was a political move by SCO because they would have had to provide proof to the German court and they chose to concentrate on the trial in the US instead.

Re:We can only hope

[jmorris42]

Guess his Billness should have sent Judge Jackson a one line email:

YHBT YHL HAND

Re:We can only hope

[ichimunki]

I never once said the U.S. system was superior. The German case was a situation where SCO appears to have decided not to fight the injunction at all. Further, I don't have any information that anyone in the U.S. has sought a similar preliminary injunction against SCO. The comparison is apples and oranges. As to your ad hominem attack: I don't know where you're from, but apparently they need to teach reading comprehension and critical thinking there.

Re:We can only hope

[Valdrax]

He made his comments after the Findings of Fact phase during the time period when he was supposed to be deciding on the level of punishment, right? I'm pretty sure that the case had been effectively judged at that point -- it was just a question of assigning remedies, wasn't it? ...Or has my memory gone fuzzy about the chronology?

Re:We can only hope

[kupci]

From the start of the case, Jackson seemed to have no bias one way or another.

I read a good article about the case, think it was Wired perhaps, in which it said that Jackson is a very good judge, and was very un-biased, however he was sharp enough to see right through Gate's thin excuses and ridiculous logic.

Re:We can only hope

[jazman_777]

SCO and Scientology. What a scary thought...

Need to start writing "$CO" instead of "SCO".

Re:We can only hope

[Prior Restraint]

Technically speaking, there were three separate phases: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and the sentencing. Usually, the first two are issued simultaneously, but Judge Jackson separated them by several months, presumably to encourage Microsoft to settle with the government. I have no idea when during all this the comments were made, though.

Re:We can only hope

[jazman_777]

As to your ad hominem attack: I don't know where you're from, but apparently they need to teach reading comprehension and critical thinking there.

And some manners.

Re:We can only hope

[mr_z_beeblebrox]

My comment was sarcasm. I understand what the court order was for. It was for making unsubstantiated claims and basing threats and FUD on it. For some reason in Germany, you can not simply make up wild claims and send out bills. You have to have adequate proof and documentation.

Sidenote to legislators...is the above a bad thing or a good thing? Please tell me your opinon before the next major election ;-)

Re:We can only hope

[Prior Restraint]

Except that the appeals court did not overturn *any* of his findings. The only thing that was overturned was his sentence.

They didn't overturn his findings, but the sentence wasn't "the only thing that was overturned". They also partially overturned the verdict:

... Accordingly, we affirm in part and reverse in part the District Court's judgment that Microsoft violated [section] 2 of the Sherman Act by employing anticompetitive means to maintain a monopoly in the operating system market; we reverse the District Court's determination that Microsoft violated [section] 2 of the Sherman Act by illegally attempting to monopolize the internet browser market; and we remand the District Court's finding that Microsoft violated [section] 1 of the Sherman Act by unlawfully tying its browser to its operating system. ...

Page 6 of the ruling. [PDF]

Oh, and on a personal note: When the Hell did Slashdot stop supporting HTML entities? § used to work just fine. What gives?

Re:We can only hope

[LWATCDR]

But that is hitch. What is published in Germany? If SCO publishes a press release in German on there US website is that a violation?
What about all the FUD they publish in english in the US? Most of the Germans I have met speak very good english. If SCO Germany links to a document on SCO website in the US will they bet busted? What about linking to a news story in the US. Do we really want to get into fining for linking? Could be a can of worms we really do not want to open.

Re:We can only hope

[MuParadigm]

No, you're pretty much on target. I'm not sure when he made the comments, but Jackson's decision held up on appeal. It was only the penalties phase that was remanded over Jackson's statements.

Re:We can only hope

[tomhudson]

So this is a lesson that every SCO licensee/partner/customer should learn - that when push comes to shove, you're on your own, as SCO won't indemnify you, and won't even let you defend yourself :-)

I guess that's why there's a "discovery" phase in trials.

Here's a good example of what's to come: SCO is now offering the Linux Kernel Personality module and Samba. The LKP's author has already said that a binary-only is a no-no. Samba is equally pissed (after all, SCO says the GPL isn't valid, and Samba is GPL-licensed),

So, when is some SCO customer going to ask SCO for a copy of the Samba license? If SCO gives them a copy of the GPL in response, SCO can kiss its' case goodbye, as it shows that they believe the GPL is binding. If they don't give a copy of the GPL in response, they've violated the terms under which Samba is distributed, and therefore can't distribute Samba without coming to some sort of licensing agreement with the developers.

Re:We can only hope

[rmohr02]

I may be wrong, but as long as SCO has a German office (which I would assume they do if they have a .de domain name) and does business in Germany, and they continue to disobey the junction by way of press releases that are available for Germans to read, they should be fined.

Of course, I don't know anything about Germany's legal system.

Re:We can only hope

[Zeinfeld]

Except that the appeals court did not overturn *any* of his findings. The only thing that was overturned was his sentence.

They made it very clear that Jackson was toast. Although they left many of his findings of fact intact they did overturn most of his conclusions based on those facts. In the US appelate court tradition there is usually a lot of deference paid to the district court on issues of fact. In this case the appeals court accused Jackson of attempting to prevent them overtuning his conclusions by describing them as fact.

When you look at the particular issues that were overturned and the ones that were left standing about the only significant finding of fact of Jacksons that was left standing was that Microsoft is a monopoly. Well duuhhh!

When you look at what the appeals court did it is pretty clear that Jackson's attempt to railroad the trial through on a short schedule killed any chance of the DoJ winning in the long haul. It would have been better for the DoJ if the whole thing had started from scratch.

Even though the appeals court had not ordered a new trial they had found Jackson to be guilty of inexcusable bias forcing the second half of the trial to be negated. It does not take a genius to see that Microsoft would have had a pretty good case in the Supreme court to get the whole case thrown out and retried.

Re:We can only hope

[thejackol]

yes, but what are you to say something like "see other thread" on a place like slashdot?!!

Re:We can only hope

[gweihir]

Actually, IIRC, SCO didn't defend itself against the injunction in the German court so the injunction was issued not on the basis of probability of the claims being true but by default.

Well, yes, I believe you are corrrect. Although it is a little more complex. They do not have to prove anything at this stage but just convince the judge(s). Whoever looses can then sue, but while an "Einstweilige Verf"ugung" can be gotten very fast, a court date can be many months in the future.

Of course if you do not defend yourself at all against accusations, it is likely that the judge(s) will grant the injunction. I do not think that they have to, but I am no legal expert. Still German law is hugely different from American law.

Re:We can only hope

[budgenator]

stick with a vanilla Microsoft business environment. What happens?

maybe what happens is SCO uses it's winning from IBM, then goes after BSD next. They'll say BSD violated the terms of the orginial suit, and that BSD was infact a system V derivative. This of course takes out OS X pretty quick and also means that because windows contains/contained BSD code it is a system V dirivative!

SCO said "Only Solaris is safe" not to long ago, aluding to the above.

Re:We can only hope

[spektr]

The real and only aim of this judgement was to create a precedence.

Precedence does not have the importance in Europe than it has in the US. AFAIK US courts rely much on precedence (decisions of other courts), while european courts have to rely solely on written laws to find their decisions. (But IANAL)

Re:We can only hope

[Pharmboy]

Just another thought - For all of you folks that work in consultancies that depend upon and recommend Linux:

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 :D Of course, now he is slightly leary of open source stuff, and he's really not a PHB, but a pretty reasonable boss.

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.

Re:We can only hope

[E_elven]

Good thing they used Darl's 'Plan C' in mounting this attack. They all pitched in a few bucks to buy a couple crates of SCO stock at $0.0021/gallon for a legal fund, just for cases like this. Go SCO!

Re:We can only hope

[Anonymous Coward]

Sco should have retained the name Caldera. You can't spell Caldera with $...yet..

Re:We can only hope

[RealityShunt]

OT:

Although I'm an athiest, I like your sig.

realityshunt

Re:We can only hope

[RealityShunt]

That's what happens when one types too fsat :)

realityshunt

Re:We can only hope

[sangdrax]

You can try and sue SCO over defamation or damaged business in Europe but it won't give you big bucks like it would in the US.

Europe doesn't have this weird culture of sueing for redicilous amounts for stuff for which no pricetag can be supported by solid and sane arguments.

First prove how much you've lost and that it's SCO's fault. *Then* you *might* see some of it back.

I do not hope Europe opens the same doors the US has and copy an insane sueing culture.

Re:We can only hope

[3247]

SCO USA and SCO Germany are two different legal entitities. SCO Germany is under a preliminary injunction not to make unsubstantiated claims, the parent company SCO USA is not.
(It is possible to file an action against SCO USA at a German court based on the fact that they publish their website to Germany. But it's not as easy as suing the local subsidiary.)

Re:We can only hope

[rmohr02]

Wouldn't SCO USA and SCO Germany both be owned by SCO Int'l or something? It seems that there has to be a legal link between the two that incorporates them into one, or SCO Germany could start selling Caldera again as SCO USA says Linux is evil.

Karma Whoring

[euphline]

Google Translation Follows:

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 /c't)

Re:Karma Whoring

[glassesmonkey]

At least fix the lawyer's name "Till hunter" which Babelfish butchered and the expression 'mental property' commonly refered to as intellectual property in the million SCO articles a month posted here.

Re:Karma Whoring

[MuParadigm]

More readable, human, translations of various articles and references to this story are available in the comments section of the write-up at Groklaw.

Re:Karma Whoring

[alessio]

illegitimately acquired mental property of SCO

I like "mental property"...

Babelfish Link

[telstar]

Or link to Babelfish and save us the trouble.

Re:Babelfish Link

[BrokenHalo]

It's kind of interesting that a variety of reasonably well-considered translations have been provided in this discussion, but a link to the Fish is somehow moderated Score:5, Informative.

Come on guys, get it right. Bonus points for links such as this informative link are ridiculous.

Not the amount

[TuataraShoes]

It's not the amount of the fine that's important. (Who gets the money anyway.) It's the 'official' trashing of SCO's accusations which is important. It will restore confidence in business considering Linux systems.

Re:Not the amount

[Confused]

This fine has not been levied because SCO is lying.

The german LinuxTag is currently suing SCO german to forbid them to claim Linux contains illegal parts of Unix in Germany. As part of the procedure, a temporary injunction has been granted which orders SCO Germany not to use those claims until the matter is settled. SCO only failed to comply with this court order and has been fined for it.

Should LinuxTag lose the lawsuit, SCO can ask from them for damages resulting from the injucntion.

But in no way this has any relevance whether the claims by SCO are true or whether they're lying.

Re:Not the amount

[EvilTwinSkippy]

Amen to that. The courts, I think, are starting to to wrest back their control from the courts of public opinion.

Re:Not the amount

[GoofyBoy]

As long as that business is in Germany.

For every other business person in the world (execept maybe some other European countries) this mean very little.

Re:Not the amount

[presroi]

It's not the amount of the fine that's important. (Who gets the money anyway.) It's the 'official' trashing of SCO's accusations which is important.

You too, my dear friend, misunderstood this fine. It was not because SCO could not prove anything but rather the other side could prove that SCO did not follow to a preliminary injunction from some weeks ago.

This is still good news but it was not about SCO's claims regarding Linux.

According to SCO-Germany's CEO, they were not given authorisation to present any proof to the judge. (Obviously, you won't find a German judge who signs a NDA). But all this was relevant *before* the preliminary injunction came into effect. The whole debate today was about SCO's efforts to comply with this preliminary injunction. You bette not mix those two 'battle fields'.

Re:Not the amount

[chgros]

Should LinuxTag lose the lawsuit, SCO can ask from them for damages resulting from the injunction
I certainly hope they can't include a fine in their damages. Winning wouldn't excuse them from complying to a court order (or that's what I would expect of a (european) court. Of course, IANAL (especially not a German one)). OTOH they might have asked damages for complying, which arguably could have been damaging to them.

Re:Not the amount

[TuataraShoes]

You're quite right. My German isn't what it isn't.

*Chink* Chisel away

[curtisk]

At least it sets some precident in this "case". The fine is measely interms of the FUD they are spreading, hopefully others will follow suit in the legal realm and take SCO to task.

Now, why would SCO germany pay, if they have SUCH a solid case??

Side Note: Babelfish is aptly named, the translations are usually Babble

Re:*Chink* Chisel away

[gl4ss]

they pay because otherwise the court system takes the money forcefully from them? they were told to not spread any more of their claims before they're proven(or pay the fine, i imagine the system would raise the fine again and again until they do what they're told if they were to disobey the order, at least this is pretty standard if you want somebody to obey). it's not like it was some crooked and cooked up settlement they could choose to take or not and bid on. you don't settle fines(whats the point in them), except maybe in the us of a. heck, i imagine if they don't pay up they get them bankrupted for not being able to pay.

-

Re:*Chink* Chisel away

[Chris Burke]

Side Note: Babelfish is aptly named, the translations are usually Babble.

Of course it's aptly named... Babble comes from Babel which comes from "the Tower of" which comes from the Biblical story in which man tries to build a tower to heaven and God gets pissed and makes it so they can't understand each other and thus couldn't finish the tower.

Though given the origin of the name "Babelfish", then it is ironic that what comes -out- is babble. :)

But it does make me wonder if perhaps the Babelfish in HHGTTG didn't actually work that well. Thanks to the fish, no one ever bothered to learn anyone else's languages, but how do they know it's an accurate translation? Maybe the fish doesn't do any better than our poor software-based fish, but the bad grammar was fixed by the character's brains/the editor. At least it's amusing to think of all the aliens communicating in babelfish-like translations. :)

Re:*Chink* Chisel away

[netsharc]

Interestingly, some archeologists claim the Tower of Babel did get built, and some other researchers use this fact of disrepancy to claim that the bible is not really a correct retelling of what happened in the world, but that some parts of it are fantasies, ideas written down by people who were opressed but dreamed their folk ruled the world and had big kingdoms.

Re:*Chink* Chisel away

[Col. Panic]

But it does make me wonder if perhaps the Babelfish in HHGTTG didn't actually work that well.

So Vogon poetry isn't really *that* bad?

Re:*Chink* Chisel away

[jd]

Technically, this ruling only affects Germany. However, judges are "only" human. In the same way that bad publicity can "poison" a jury pool, and bias the outcome, this has the potential for "poisoning" the minds of whatever judge(s) hear the assorted US cases.

Re:*Chink* Chisel away

[Chris Burke]

So Vogon poetry isn't really *that* bad?

No, it's much worse! Bad translation is the only reason Arthur and Ford were able to survive a whole stanza!

Now let's watch...

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's all sit back and watch their stocks go up as a result.

Re:Now let's watch...

[cioxx]

Broker Recommendation: Strong Sell

http://biz.yahoo.com/z/a/s/scox.html

Re:Now let's watch...

[kaptink]

Historical data on SCOX

http://table.finance.yahoo.com/m?a=5&b=1&c=2002&d= 8&e=2&f=2003&g=m&s=scox

Re:Now let's watch...

[pork_spies]

The graph on the yahoo site shows why all this has made sense for SCO - their share price has rocketed in a very fragile market. Their claims may be rubbish, but you cannot fault the (short term) business sense here: somebody has made a mint out of this.

It's the principle that counts

[heironymouscoward]

Once SCO has been sued, the amount does not matter. If the plaintiffs (I must RTFA) can enjoin SCO to stop their claims, and get the courts to set damages, each time SCO repeats their offense, they'll pay again.
Besides, I strongly suspect that a conviction in a German court will weigh heavily against SCO in other courts should this become a popular tactic.
Even a 1 EUR award would be a significant blow against SCO's position.

Re:It's the principle that counts

[GoofyBoy]

>Besides, I strongly suspect that a conviction in a German court will weigh heavily against SCO in other courts

Are European courts really that tied together?

I know that, except for evidence presented, what goes on in courts in the US has no bearing on the court-judgement in Canada.

Shouldn't that be the way in Europe?

Re:It's the principle that counts

[Eric Ass Raymond]

The long term goal of EU is to have a single voice in foreign politics (there most likely will be an EU president and a minister of foreign affairs at some point), bind together all the national economies and harmonize legislation.

All of which, I think, is a good thing.

In other news

[mao che minh]

In other news, Microsoft chairman and cofounder Bill Gates expressed regret, and is reportedly highly upset that Microsoft must pay $10,000 ($10,800 USD) Euros in legal expenses, after a judgement was passed by German courts.

;)

Contempt of court?

[Picass0]

I'm sure that SCO will pay the 10k euro without blinking, but they are unlikely the change their bahavior. Then what? In the US the continuation of claims after paying the fine would eventually lead to contempt of court charges. Would this not be the case in Germany as well?

Darl in a German prison. That thought makes me smile :)

Re:Contempt of court?

[gl4ss]

probably leads to higher and higher fines the longer they keep doing it(up until they can't pay which would put them out of business in germany at least).

note that sco can say all it wants outside germany.

Re:Contempt of court?

[Brahmastra]

They are getting away easy only because they haven't sent extortion letters to Linux users, asking for licensing fees in Germany. The 10k fine was for just 1 incident.. something posted on a webpage. If they had sent 1000s of extortion letters, I suspect the fine would have been significantly higher. I wish a US court would fine them for similar offenses. That could lead to a much bigger fine because of all the extortion letters sent by the thugs.

Re:Contempt of court?

[mikeee]

Well, I understand Germany is having troubles keeping its budget deficits within the Euro limits - if they fine SCO 10K Euros everytime Darl M. says something that'll clear right up!

Re:Contempt of court?

[j7953]

In the US the continuation of claims after paying the fine would eventually lead to contempt of court charges. Would this not be the case in Germany as well?

Yes, probably, but they don't continue to make those claims. The preliminary injunction is only against "The SCO Group GmbH," i.e. the German subsidiary, not against the US parent company. I've just looked at SCO Group GmbH's web site, and not found any claims about Linux, information about their Linux licensing or anything like that.

The fine that SCO has to pay now is because after the injunction against them was issued, SCO took offline their German web site, but when they put it back online their "letter to Linux users" was still published on the HTTPS version of the web site. SCO claims that the continued publication was a mistake. That was in June, more information can be found in this article (German).

The court has now decided that SCO was negligent in operating their web server, that's why they have to pay the fine.

Re:Contempt of court?

[doktor-hladnjak]

Darl in a German prison. That thought makes me smile :)

Nah. I'd rather see him in an American prison.

German prisons are really like palaces in comparison. I saw this thing on German TV a while back, where they went inside a prison. They had murderers, rapists, and other people who commited very serious crimes living in a room with barred windows and a big strong door (just like the US). However, the prisoners got to wear normal street clothes, had actual real furniture in their cell, a seperate bathroom (not just a toilet in the same room like many US prisons). It looked a lot like my studio apartment really. I was very surprised.

And that's for violent criminals. Imagine what a white collar crime low-security prison in Germany must be like.

Re:Contempt of court?

[IWannaBeAnAC]

'm sure that SCO will pay the 10k euro without blinking

I wouldn't be so sure of that, 10k is actually a significant fraction of their last years revenue....

Re:Contempt of court?

[Vlad_the_Inhaler]

In some european countries, in particular - as you say - the Nordic ones. Germany is not 'Nordic' in that sense, although a lot better than the UK which is itself better than the US.

An excellent account of life in English prisons is in a recent book by Erwin James (a pseudonym). The author is now 17 years into a life sentence for (I believe) murder and will be released soon, he does not go into any details but simply makes it clear that the sentence was a logical conclusion to the way his life was leading.
Apparently his book is required reading for inmates and staff at one young offenders prison in the UK. According to him, prison in the UK nowadays is about 'warehousing' with rehabilitation a very distant second, a change introduced by Michael Howard when he was Home Secretary in the early to mid 90's. In one of the chapters (each one a published article in a British paper), he mentions that someone he knew was raped in prison so it happens there as well. Here are a couple of his more recent articles which are not in the book.

Re:Contempt of court?

[680x0]

Just so you know, in Europe they actually try to re-educate the prisoners

Oooo! That's a picture that warms my heart. Darl, sitting in a darkened theater, with his eyes clamped open, watching Linux source code scroll by, until he finally swears off "the old ultra-litigation".

Anyway, back to the discussion, me droogs. :-)

Re:Contempt of court?

[zurab]

The 10k fine was for just 1 incident.. something posted on a webpage. If they had sent 1000s of extortion letters, I suspect the fine would have been significantly higher.

What's the difference? Did the court ask how many times the violating webpage had been accessed since the injunction?

Re:Contempt of court?

[Vlad_the_Inhaler]

In the article, he met some kid who annoyed him in a low key way. When he got to know the kid better, he realised that he had known his brother around 10 years earlier. It was the brother who had been raped. This makes that sort of behaviour sound very rare, although in another article, it turned out that a young and pretty crazy prisoner had been abused in the orphanige he grew up in.

What do you call 10,000 Euros?

[advocate_one]

A good start...

bit like one of those "dead lawyer" jokes...

Re:What do you call 10,000 Euros?

[UserAlreadyExists]

10,000 Euros = About 54 lawyer-hours.

Re:What do you call 10,000 Euros?

[azzy]

Wow, cheap lawyers!!

Re:What do you call 10,000 Euros?

[shotfeel]

Its called bulk pricing.

And the SCO Information Minister Says...

[Joel Carr]

I wonder what sort of spin the SCO Information Minister is going to put on this one... I bet it's all IBM's fault again!

http://WeLoveTheSCOInformationMinister.org

---

Re:And the SCO Information Minister Says...

[Anonymous Coward]

McBride proudly dumped two phone-book-sized binders of press clippings
on the stage during his SCO Forum keynote on Monday as proof that
his company had become more relevant in the high technology industry.

To McBride's surprise however,
endless ammounts of monopoly money started raining down on him.

Re:And the SCO Information Minister Says...

[u-235-sentinel]

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.

FINED! for what?

[HogGeek]

Are they being fined because what they (SCO) are saysing isn't true, or because they won't show thier "evidence"?

If it is because what they are saying isn't true, based on what "proof"?

Don't get me wrong, I don't believe them either, but it isn't that simple in the courts.

Re:FINED! for what?

[peterprior]

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.

Re:FINED! for what?

[Anita Coney]

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.

Re:FINED! for what?

[IWannaBeAnAC]

The injunction in Germany was about SCO making claims about linux but refusing to show any evidence to back those claims up.

Basically, they have been told to "put up or shut up", and they did neither, hence the fine.

It does not mean that a court has found SCO is not telling the truth, it just means that if SCO want to continue making big statement, they need to accompanying evidence.

Re:FINED! for what?

[karolo]

As far as I can gather from the translation SCO had received an injunction which prevented them (SCO) from saying that Linux had stolen code until there is a court case failed on SCO's favour. SCO violated that injunction and that is what they are being fined for. There is no judgement on the value of SCO's claims, only that if they want to FUD based on the such claims, they will have to show first that the claims are valid.

Re:FINED! for what?

[Shimbo]

The injunction in Germany was about SCO making claims about linux but refusing to show any evidence to back those claims up.

The suggestion that customers of rival companies might be held liable if they used Linux seems to me a particularly obnoxious form of unfair competition. However, this isn't really a stupid US laws versus sensible European ones story; it's just that SCO opted to pursue their case in the US.

Re:FINED! for what?

[finkployd]

The fact that SCO has still refused to show its proof is pretty good evidence to me that they don't have any.

Not really, although everyone assumes this. It is (remotly) possible that they do have legit evidence. The reason they do not want to show it may be because their intention is to extort as much money (licensing fees) as possible out of people, not give the Linux community a chance to fix the problem and remove any offending code.

Assuming SCO as a company lasts long enough for this to go to trial, watch for them to try to have a gag order placed on the evidence. It will come out in the trial, but they will want it kept secret from the public.

Finkployd

Re:FINED! for what?

[Grishnakh]

It doesn't matter where they've decided to pursue the case. In any country where they have customers and competitors, they can't just go around spouting FUD and hurting peoples' business unless they have a very good reason. I can't run around claiming Microsoft stole my IP, and that everyone running Windows needs to pay me a $1000 license fee, and then when people say I don't have any evidence, I say that my court case will be decided in the republic of Vanuatu, but it'll take 15 years because the court system there is very slow, so until then they just have to take my word for it.

In countries with advanced legal systems, this kind of anticompetitive behavior will get you in trouble. But I guess in backwards countries like Congo, Liberia, and the USA, there just aren't any safeguards in the system to prevent this kind of crap.

Yeah stick it to them.

[mrsev]

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.

Re:Yeah stick it to them.

[The Terminator]

No they were not beeing sued for behaviour outside Germany but because they made their claims on the homepage of SCO Germany.
And they were fined because they continued to publish their claims on their german homepage (sco.de) after the injunction taking effect.

CU

Wonderful

[tommten]

I wonder though where this fine will go?
would be nice if a larger amount found it's way to the open source community :)

Hopefully this will result in companys thinking before buying licences from SCO's FUD-factory..

Re:Wonderful

[ewn]

"Ordnungsgeld" will probably end up in the government's pockets.

Various national courts

[TWX]

For whatever reason, it looks like Courts of Law in other countries seem to operate with more sanity than American courts do. I've wondered if this is in response to a feeling of a lack of due process when the U.S. was founded, or if we just have gotten to where anyone feels that they're entitled to sue "just because".

Of course, SCO/Caldera being an American company trying to enforce claims in a foreign country that doesn't (yet) have software patents might be partially why.

Re:Various national courts

[Alkonaut]

For whatever reason, it looks like Courts of Law in other countries seem to operate with more sanity than American courts do.

In most other countries you can find places at a zoo that operate with more sanity.

Re:Various national courts

[Coneasfast]

Of course, SCO/Caldera being an American company trying to enforce claims in a foreign country that doesn't (yet) have software patents might be partially why.

huh? IBM breached a contract and included some of SCO's code in the Linux source code (at least this is what SCO is claiming). This has nothing to do with patents.

Re:Various national courts

[update()]

I've wondered if this is in response to a feeling of a lack of due process when the U.S. was founded, or if we just have gotten to where anyone feels that they're entitled to sue "just because".

Huh? This fine is a result of LinuxTag's claim against SCO, for commercial speech that would be entirely protected in the US.

Of course, SCO/Caldera being an American company trying to enforce claims in a foreign country that doesn't (yet) have software patents might be partially why.

Again, huh? What does this have to do with software patents. And again, this is LinuxTag's case against SCO.

Re:Various national courts

[molarmass192]

claim against SCO, for commercial speech that would be entirely protected in the US

That's not true, see Red Hat's lawsuit for a full explaination. It's called "trade libel" and it is not protected speech here in the US.

Re:Various national courts

[ninewands]

Grandparent poster sayeth:

I've wondered if this is in response to a feeling of a lack of due process when the U.S. was founded, or if we just have gotten to where anyone feels that they're entitled to sue "just because".

To which parent respondeth:

Huh? This fine is a result of LinuxTag's claim against SCO, for commercial speech that would be entirely protected in the US.

Not really. There are laws against commercial disparagement in most of these United States and they have all passed constitutional muster. Commercial speech is subject to some constraints that political, artistic, journalistic and social speech are not because the objective of commercial speech is to make money whereas the purpose of most other forms of speech is to communicate facts and/or express ideas.

The reason SCO hasn't been hit with a preliminary injunction in the US is because nobody has asked for one. US courts like cases being "tried in the media" even less than European courts do.

Re:Various national courts

[eniu!uine]

"The reason SCO hasn't been hit with a preliminary injunction in the US is because nobody has asked for one. US courts like cases being "tried in the media" even less than European courts do."

I believe Redhat has asked for one(?). If not... WTF!!

Re:Various national courts

[ninewands]

But no hearing has been held on the question. When it has and SCO is "put to their proof" THEN, and only then, will a precedent be established.

Will they stop?

[GGardner]

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?

Re:Will they stop?

[christoph_s]

no, they are fined because they kept claiming their fud on sco.DE .

Re:Will they stop?

[hendridm]

> 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?

Seems like you answered your own question to me.

Re:Will they stop?

[hughk]

Regrettably not. SCO Inc and SCO GmbH are two different legal entities.

Re:Will they stop?

[GGardner]

So, if sco.de links to sco.com press releases, is sco.de still making claims?

Re:Will they stop?

[paule9984673]

under German law, yes. (This is why they won't do this, they'll just link to the root of sco.com instead, which would probably be OK under German law)

Mental property?

[zonix]

contains illegitimately acquired mental property

Mental Property? That's a new one. :-)

z

Re:Mental property?

[TedCheshireAcad]

Mental Property? That's a new one. :-)

I copyrighted that thought in 1997. Pay up, sucka.

Re:Mental property?

[Brendan Byrd]

Well, that's really what IP boils down to: trying to copyright one's mental thoughts.

seemingly low amount

[radoni]

10k USD is loose change in the states, though i've the understanding it's valued quite a bit more in the hands of a Germand operation. Additionally, this sets the tone for another official confrontation (well you lost to SCO Germany, so it looks like all that publicity really *sarcasm* validates your claims, hosers. pay up).

good news for me, "yay!"

=o]

Re:Overzealous regulators; let the market decide

[bit01]

Get real. The free market is a myth. Every market has rules to stop negative behaviour (eg. lying about competitors products, engaging in monopolistic behaviour, running a protection racket) while allowing positive behaviour (eg. improving product, lowering prices).

More Links

[Anonymous Coward]

English:
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=1132 1

German:
http://www.pro-linux.de/news/2003/5909. html

This is not about material issues.

[wfberg]

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.

Re:This is not about material issues.

[jonatanw]

Yeah, people in general only listen to what's told to them. That's why marketing and propaganda of this grade actually works. It's not surprising if this is some business war in the background headed by Microsoft to damage Linux's reputation in the "business" world. Opensource could use several more of similar court dealings and the whole matter would be over. Question is, will the people who beleive SCO's propaganda claims understand that?

Re:This is not about material issues.

[Alomex]

In Germany they have this weird concept that a seller liying in an advertisement is fraud, as the seller is misrepresenting the product.

In the USA, we are more enlightened than that, and judges have ruled that is quite Ok to lie (even when the company *knows* its lying) in an add as this constitutes free speech.

Re:This is not about material issues.

[Tuqui]

didn't you forget the tags?.

Re:This is not about material issues.

[o'reor]

In Germany they have this weird concept that a seller liying in an advertisement is fraud, as the seller is misrepresenting the product.

Wait a minute, I'll take an example. OK, there's an ad which says that there's a shop in a remote suburb selling goods (say, laptops with excellent configurations) at discount prices. It also says that the sales will be over tomorrow. I've been waiting for a bargain on a laptop for a while, this one seems to be good, but I have not planned to go shopping tonight.

Since the sales will be over tomorrow, I decide to leave work a little earlier than I had planned to, get into my car, and prepare for 45 minutes of fun in the traffic jams. Once I get to the shop, I realize that the features of the damn laptops they're selling are not half the ones that are mentionned in the ad. This was a deliberate lie on behalf on the sales people just to drag people into their shops.

Now, you can go on and say this is about freedom of speech. Meanwhile, I've lost 2x45 minutes of my precious time in traffic jams, only to find out that there was no interesting deal at all, because the ads were a pile of bullshit. This is one good reason (among many others) why in some countries (France as well -- usual suspects...) there are laws against lying in ads and commercials.

Just my 0.02 euros...

Re:This is not about material issues.

[StenD]

So I suppose that the this doesn't exist? The FTC does go after companies who make false claims in promoting their products.

Re:This is not about material issues.

[Alomex]

From the FTC web site:

Ads that make subjective claims or claims that consumers can judge for themselves (for example, "ABC Cola tastes great") receive less attention from the FTC.

It has been has ruled that the statement "ABC widgets are better than XYZ brand" is protected under free speech even when company ABC knows for a fact, as acknowledge in internal communications, that this is false.

Re:This is not about material issues.

[mkldev]

According the courts (and rightly so), "Product A is better than product B" is an opinion. By definition, opinions cannot be false. Product B's company can no more sue for libel because someone felt their product was better than a movie company could after a reviewer said "It stinks".

There's a reason that this sort of speech is protected....

Re:This is not about material issues.

[Elwood P Dowd]

There are laws against false advertisements here in the states too. Grandparent poster is talking out of his ass.

Re:This is not about material issues.

[HiThere]

If so, they sure aren't enforced. I've seen "Going out of business" sales that lasted 10 years. I've seen ads for "quality merchandise" that turned out to be excrement. I've seen....

Generally is a merchant uses deceptive ads the advice you get is to contact the BBB, which has no enforcement powers, and is composed of other business folk. And which appearantly believes that the business is correct unless it's a blatant rip-off (e.g., not delivering purchased merchandise).

So I'll agree that the laws are on the books. But they aren't enforced. You're expected to *expect* business ads to be lies, just as you're supposed to *expect* politicians campaign promisses to be lies. But nobody says what you should do if you are deceived...what you alternatives are, or how to find out the truth. You're supposed to *expect* them to cheat you. And to have no recourse.

Re:This is not about material issues.

[Alomex]

"Product A is better than product B" is an opinion. By definition, opinions cannot be false.

Funny, as the internal employees if company had no problem ascertaining that the "opinion" was false.

I have no problem giving more latitude to an subjective statement where it might be harder to determine truthness, but I draw the line when even the employees of company A agree that it is not true.

By the way, that was just one example. Another example of companies liying and being allowed to get away with it, is that you can purchase "lemonade" in many states that contain 0% lemon.

If you agree to that then I have a home to sell you that happens to contain 0% house.

Re:This is not about material issues.

[Grishnakh]

You're arguing a technicality. Anyone living in the US should know by now that laws and actual corporate practices are two totally different things. Unlike some advanced countries where corporations are forced by the legal system to actually follow the local laws, and are truly punished when they don't, here in the US corporations can just do whatever they want, as long as they've paid off the right people. Sometimes, they do get prosecuted, and even lose the case, but then are given a slap on the wrist punishment.

Re:greedy yanks

[peterprior]

This is becoming more and more clear..

Europe are prepared to take a stand, and the US just sit back and let people / corporations make all the claims and have all the power they want.

This seems to be evident in the Microsoft Antitrust stuff, the Software Patents Issue and now the SCO case.

Glad I live in europe.

There is a funny game in Germany..

[presroi]

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.

Re:There is a funny game in Germany..

[pair-a-noyd]

"schadenfreude" is a *GOOD* word. It's also my middle name. Danke for the new idea..

Re:There is a funny game in Germany..

[pergamon]

My dictionary says that "schadenfreude" is also an english word.

Yes, it is a term used to describe a flawed entry in a bilingual dictionary. See: schadenfreude

Actually, Webster and other dictionaries do think schadenfreude is an English word taken from German, but what do they know?

Re:There is a funny game in Germany..

[hardcnxn]

In fact, schadenfreude was one of the final words spelled in the 2002 National Spelling Bee Championships here in the US. It was on ESPN2.
Maybe we can get ESPN to televise your 'funny game'. It'd even be better than when I used to watch the skiers rack themselves on Wide World of Sports, back in the day.

Re:There is a funny game in Germany..

[ThyTurkeyIsDone]

Bear in mind though that SCO's irresponsible behaviour is entirely the fault of the new management over in the US. The German SCO employees might even be totally disgusted with what's going on. What would you do if you were in their place? How would you feel if you were a Free Software enthousiast and you had joined Caldera years ago, happy to have a job at a Linux company (not a very successful one, but still), and all of a sudden your new US bosses started pulling all these ridiculous and libellous claims about Linux out of their arses? Would you ditch your job or get yourself fired by speaking your mind, considering current unemployment levels in Germany?

Our enemies are McBride and his gang, not necessarily every SCO employee on this planet.

Re:There is a funny game in Germany..

[presroi]

Most of the people you describe are laid off.
May 2002: 73 people for example.

But what if we could find a person inside SCO who is completely frustrated. Could a grassroot money fund raising campaing raise enough money for him to run over to the good side, do his whistleblower-job and survive any law fight with SCO?

I think I could spend 20 Euros for this person if he was able to talk about SCO, e.g.
a) SCO stealing Linux code for its Unixware products
b) SCO getting paid from Microsoft to run amok
c) SCO raping little penguins.
d) [your conspiration here]

How much money does it take to start a rebellion inside SCO?

Well, this idea is still pre-alpha and is not meant for this reality yet.

Re:There is a funny game in Germany..

[Lispy]

I'll tell you what: Quit!
A friend of mine worked for Caldera/Germany back when they were a Linux Company. He quit because SCO was hurting his OpenSource ideals. Well, he can afford, though. His parents are filthy rich and he made his first million during dotcom.

Sigh, those were the days. At least someone I know got all my money now.

Re:There is a funny game in Germany..

[scrytch]

> My dictionary says that "schadenfreude" is also an english word.

Maybe the germans don't use it. "Zeitgeist" is another word that's more popular in english as well. To say nothing of "blitzkrieg".

Re:There is a funny game in Germany..

[lfd]

Most of the people you descrived are laid off.
May 2002: 73 people for example.

Yeah, that happened to me to w/ Caldera NJ. It has to be because I have a German name too...

According to

[stephenbooth]

The Inquirer:

SCO fined 10,000 or CEO goes to gaol

Injunction breached, site claims

By INQUIRER staff: Tuesday 02 September 2003, 10:51 A REPORT ON a German web site said that SCO faces a fine of 10,000 or alternatively its CEO can spend 10 days in clink for violating an injunction.

According to Pro-Linux.de, the site kept on claiming that Linux breaches SCO intellectual property and copyrights, even though it was ordered by a German judge earlier this year to stop doing that.

The site claims that SCO has to divvy up the Euros with delay.

Stephen

Re:According to

[Sven Tuerpe]

... or alternatively its CEO can spend 10 days in clink for violating an injunction.

According to SCO's current business model, the CEO should choose this option because it is going to generate a lot more press coverage than silent payment of the 10,000 fine.

Re:According to

[gl4ss]

heck.. i could sit in clink for 1000e / day for a week..

hey sco.de, sign me up as your ceo!

(hey it's not like anyone would pay that much for having sex with me in any case!)

There is some justice in this world,

[pair-a-noyd]

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..

Re:There is some justice in this world,

[arth1]

What's it going to take to get a similar ruling here in the US??

Consumer rights. Ain't gonna happen.

In the EU, and even more so in north-western Europe, consumers have much more rights than in the US, and the proof of burden is typically on the companies and not the consumer. In this case, the company (SCO) made a claim against the consumer's rights, but could not, or could not yet provide a legal foundation for their claim. Thus the German court first gagged SCO from making the claims until/if they can back up the claims. It's not up to the consumers to prove that they're NOT liable -- it's up to SCO to prove that they are, and even WHO are liable.
The fine, on the other hand, was for SCO Germany not following the court order, and continuing to publish claims to the German consumers.
The fine makes no statement about whether the claims are true or false, but is a slap on the hand for not following the court injunction about not making unverified claims in public.

The US system is VERY different, and claims can be made not only under the protection of "free speech", but also because US property laws make it necessary to make the claims or lose the property.
Consumers are not a special protected group, and will have to fight their own battles and protect their own rights -- there's little government interference unless it interferes with more than just consumers rights.

Regards,
--
*Art

Re:There is some justice in this world,

[kilgortrout]

What's it going to take to get a similar ruling here in the US??

Answer: Someone, either redhat or IBM, is going to have to ask a court for a preliminary injunction. So far, neither has.

Re:There is some justice in this world,

[terminal.dk]

In Europe, if you make claims about your products, you better be ready to prove them, or the product could be taken off the market if you do not remove the falso information.

IMHO, what SCO did was that they removed their referecnes to anti-Linux because they would not risc a fast judgement by german law, but rather would have it all take forever in the US, where crap like patents etc are without any contact to the real world. It is less than 20 years ago someone in the US was awarded the patent on the wheel.

Precis

[Tiassa]

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.

Just https

[Schoellix]

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.

Re:Just https

[Tsu Dho Nimh]

If they make the same "mistake" again, will they have the 250,000 Euro fine?

They probably blamed it on someone uploading an old page.

Re:Just https

[Speare]

Is that like SCO "forgot" to yank GPL'd kernel source code from their FTP sites?

Re:Just https

[mattdm]

And which they continue to "forget"....

Re:Jesse Owens

[pair-a-noyd]

are you like this by nature or were you dropped on your head when you were little??

"character assassination"

[Anonymous Coward]

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...

Re:"character assassination"

[Reaper9889]

Its more like "destruction of reputation"

Re:"character assassination"

[The Terminator]

Rufmord = slander or calumny

Re:Small Price

[shis-ka-bob]

This isn't a patent case.

Manual Translation

[ewn]

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.

Darl's address & phone number

[Anonymous Coward]

A search of qwestdex.com shows:

Mcbride Darl C
1799 E Vintage Oak Ln
Holladay UT 84121
(801) 424-2006

enjoy.

Re:Small Price

[El]

And exactly how many patents does SCO own? Care to cite the patent numbers, or are you just another part of the SCO FUD machine?

pcmag gives undeserved credibility to SCO

[asv108]

One item of note on the topic of SCO is that the latest PC magazine has a opinion column by editor-in-chief Michael J. Miller that is completely biased against Linux.

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.

Re:pcmag gives undeserved credibility to SCO

[WCMI92]

PC Magazine is part of Ziff-Davis. And I trust anything they editorialize about as far as I could throw a tank.

ZD is notoriously biased towards advertisers. Microsoft being one of their largest ones.

I was a subscriber to Computer Gaming World for years (it used to be by far the BEST gaming magazine) until ZD took over and they started giving glowing reviews to shit games (who advertised).

The old CGW would rip what deserved ripping.

Re:pcmag gives undeserved credibility to SCO

[lordmage]

I had been wondering about CGW myself.

I get both CGW and PCGamer. but PCGamer also gives glowing reviews to steaming piles of crap.

However, they get on these bandwagons of bad games.. It seems they dont understand genre's at times and like Pool of Radiance, a strict slow dungeon crawl, was considered not fun. Heck it was a blast.. but I like those games.

Shrug, in the end.. Blame Canada.

Re:pcmag gives undeserved credibility to SCO

[Cyno]

Doesn't Ziff-Davis write some business application benchmark software, too? Wouldn't this be a conflict of interest?

I guess not as long as Microsoft always comes out on top.

Anyone remember seeing those benchmarks comparing various office suites back in the day, when there were competing office suites to MS Office? Didn't it strike you as odd that Microsoft outperformed some of the other suites by a significant margin on some tests. And the only explanation the competition could come up with is undocumented APIs.

Re:pcmag gives undeserved credibility to SCO

[mugnyte]

This oversimplifies the case. First, even SCO FUD claims this is "not about copyright, but about licensing" between them and IBM. So either the article or the FUD is wrong. Probably both.

Also, this doesn't mention the concept of "public domain", of which the code they supposedly own is an implementation of such an algorithm. If the text is a copy/paste but the concept is directly school textbook, IANAL to determine how much value there is in their stuff anymore.

The details of the releases have been posted and reposted in the SCO news articles so often I tire of the discussion. Suffice it to say however, that SCO has to prove quite a large number of dubious claims before we get to this simplified concept of "code here...code here...pay up!"

Example:
The design of the System V code that they own is based on a legacy design that Linux also borrwed from. The four sections of kernel code that differ are possibly identical implementations of the same public concepts. IBM may or may not have injected the code into the tree, but BSD's implementation suggests Linux borrowed from this instead of SCO. BSD code is exempt due to the ATT fiasco predating SCO's Unixware. Also, the modules can be built in *almost identical* fashion by reading any grad-level OS text book sold readily at your local campus of higher education.

SCO sits on very shakey ground when making any claim that Linux has valuable components that would not exist without their effort, created or bought. And also (as has been said) SCO itself cannot survive without the efforts of BSD and Linux being integrated into their own products. The irony is scathing. The SCO convention was full of statements that made your head spin about the GPL (its good, its bad, its not how we do business, its what we rely on, it make code worthless, it how we recommend developing)

mug

Re:pcmag gives undeserved credibility to SCO

[WCMI92]

The Register calles benchmarking "Benchmarketing". I think that is the best term to use ;)

As I recall, ZD has panned Linux almost without exception for the past 5 years.

I used to subscribe to computer mags back when they were for people with clue. But now most of them are just glossy rags for the "can barely install AOL by myself" crowd.

RIP:

Compute!

RUN

and others...

Re:pcmag gives undeserved credibility to SCO

[WCMI92]

CGW used to have an excellent RPG columnist named "Scorpia". Scorpia NEVER hesitated to pan something she hated. Or to berate the genre for it's usual "kill the great Foozle" objectives, etc.

She used to drive me nuts for panning games (like "Darklands") that I absolutely loved. But, she always DID make good points.

Around the time of the ZD takeover was when she disappeared.

Read reviews and editorials in ZD rags. See who advertises. Chances are, you will find many matches.

Considering that I doubt SCO has ever advertised in ZD rags, this editorial is doubtless aimed at carring more H2O for Bill Gates.

You know, circulation of computer mags is declining... I (and others) go to the web to read reviews by people who actually BOUGHT the things (can't get more honest than that), or enthusiasts sites. I really don't see any need for ZD mags, unless one has time to kill, no computer, and wants to pick up something to read.

Perhaps if ZD had some editorial integrity, they'd sell more mags.

Re:pcmag gives undeserved credibility to SCO

[DF5JT]

" Some of the evidence Sontag showed us is straightforward: Sections of the Linux kernel code relating to the journaling file system [...] support are identical to the Unix System V code."

Ummh.

*The* journalling file system?

BS.

Re:pcmag gives undeserved credibility to SCO

[Crispy Critters]

"Some of the evidence Sontag showed us is straightforward:...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."

They admitted this after ESR, Bruce Perens, and others showed that SCO's example of SMP code illegally put in the kernel by IBM was in fact code for Itanium support put in by SGI. It was only there for a few releases, and is nearly identical to public domain Unix code. In other words, they are admitting that they lied.

I have ceased to be shocked by journalists who take press releases and treat them as unquestionable truth, even when contrary evidence is easily available. I have not ceased to be appalled by it.

Re:pcmag gives undeserved credibility to SCO

[ninthwave]

Ok I want to know when SCO added a journaling file system to Unix. I thought that was an IBM invention that SCO is claiming is covered with the AIX contract as Unix derivation. And now the code was not added by IBM which means their contract dispute with IBM is only part of the legal case. But has that code in System V and Linux been compared to the BSD's and the publically released Unix from Caldera?????

from one broker...

[bagofbeans]

... as the only opinion (!).

And Nasdaq doesn't even have one broker prepared to issue a recommendation.

The court of financial advice appears to have a verdict here.

How effective is this really?

[El]

Can't SCO easily get around this by issuing press releases in German in some other countries? Wouldn't it really be necessary to get injunctions in all 170 different countries to really make the FUD machine stop? In the future, will allowing slander and FUD become a big part of small island econmies like Nevis/St Kitts?

Re:Small Price

[Tsu Dho Nimh]

" And exactly how many patents does SCO own? "

One, as of March 4, 2003. Number 6,529,784

First Scientology....

[Channard]

.. now this? Almost makes me want to move to Germany.

Overclaiming?

[neiffer]

Although I think that SCO's claims are totally without foundation, I wonder if, in the end, there is just a little bit to this and SCO it blowing it out of porportion. The implication I read in the article was that it wasn't lie as in fabrication, but lie as in there wasn't enough evidence to support such a strong claim.

Are thr courts bound together?

[heironymouscoward]

No, but judges may treat a "guilty" verdict in another member state as contributory information.
It depends rather on the basis for the charge: if it comes under some quirk of German national law, the chances it will affect a ruling elsewhere are slim. But if it comes under a law enacted on the basis of an EU convention, the chances may be good. Disclaimer: IANAL.

Re:Are thr courts bound together?

[mkldev]

On an informal level, the same goes for the U.S. courts, at least with respect to British decisions. One could assume that it also acts that way with respect to other EU member decisions. They're not binding precedent, but they may, at the judge's discretion, be considered as evidence of wrongdoing.

However, in this case, it is unclear whether the German court decision would make sense outside of Germany. At least in the U.S., you can't have "prior restraint" in publication except in extreme cases (significant national security risk, for example), which means that while the court could order them to remove existing content, it could not prevent them from adding new content. Thus, assuming they removed the existing potentially libelous statements, the court could not find them in contempt for adding new potentially libelous statements.

Not about lying but about proof.

[GerardM]

SCO has been fined for saying things without proof/ Where SCO to say the same things and substantiating their claim, it would be ok for them to say so.

A hell of a difference.

Re:Not about lying but about proof.

[GerardM]

WHY they got this fine is because they said things that they did not substantiate. They were under orders NOT to do that. They were punished for asserting things without the needed prove. Without knowing their "prove" we do not know if it is accurate or assertions of dubious value.
Thanks,
Gerard

Re:Not about lying but about proof.

[budgenator]

Maybe not, this is about a contract thing, and it started back before there was any thing like copyrighted software or software patents. If IBM sucessfully argues that it aquired the IP from sequent, then releases the aquired IP under the terms of the system V license that IBM has it could produce a different result legaly than if IBM released the same IP under the terms of the sequent's system V license.

It is very possible that the legal proof in the US, could legaly dis-prove their claims in an other country!

Re:German FUD-suppression system superior to USA's

[zpok]

"But on the other hand, Germany embraces its own collection of stupid ideas, like the cradle-to-grave welfare state"

A cradle-to-grave welfare state is a beautiful thing. You're young, healthy and I presume able to have a decent insurance (or you haven't had the pleasure to fall through one of their loopholes yet), but you'll change your tone once you're no longer deemed "productive"...

I currently live in a country with US alike healthcare system, trying to undo some of the 1980's US foreign policy (El Salvador, look it up and weep) and we can't even get our housekeeper and her husband insured. They don't count, the (company-paid) doctors laugh at us. The most we've been able to do is insure her against accidents.

I'll be very glad to move back to Europe next year. Paying my taxes in full, knowing that I'll get it back somehow in education for my daughter, healthcare for my family, a gun-free environment and protection against poverty if we fall from grace.

I just can't believe most Americans think welfare is "liberal"... You just wait and see what happens when something unforseen happens. You'll wish your country (that is presumably you and others who vote) cared a bit more for people in general instead of success stories.

I Got Sued By SCO......

[Anonymous Coward]

SCO reminds me of my brother and I fighting over something. Please mod me down, I'm a redundant, trolling, flamebait-loving dogmatist and I was a pro-DMCA lobbyist. They are claiming the whitespace. As soon as my crack legal team locates him, he will be sorry! I'd like my money back please.

This Comment was generated with the Comment-O-Matic for SCO Stories.

Human Translation

[cwernli]

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.

only Deutschland

[siskbc]

At least it sets some precident in this "case". The fine is measely interms of the FUD they are spreading, hopefully others will follow suit in the legal realm and take SCO to task.

Unfortunately, wrong country. You might get the PR angle in the US, but not the legal.

Death of a thousand cuts

[auferstehung]

Want to destroy SCO? Contribute to a Death of a thousand cuts by filing suit in small claims court. Only a 150,000 such suits should tap SCOX's market cap.

Re:Death of a thousand cuts

[beta21]

I really like your idea about filing in a small claims court.

IANAL so I what I am about to say may be complete babble. What am I filing for? I don't see any financial damages done to me by SCO.

just some random thoughts

Re:Death of a thousand cuts

[auferstehung]

What am I filing for?

That's the $64K question isn't it? I was hoping someone more clever than I would help out on that. This account of using small claims to get a windows refund is interesting. I wonder if linux developers who have had their copyright infringed or reputation damaged would have a claim.

not suitable for under 18s!!!

[newbiefan]

yah yah you like dat... you have been naughty SCO!!!

Re: Even more Karma Whoring

[Idaho]

Translation by hand (mostly):

SCO Germany has to pay a EUR 10,000 fine. This decision of the regional court of Munich I is based on [violation of] a provisional order of the enterprise Tarent and the LinuxTag against SCO. The order states SCO should cease making claims that Linux is violating SCO's Intellectual Property. It seems that SCO continued making such claims on their homepage, and therefore, in june Tarent asked the judge to impose a fine on them.

The court accused SCO of ignoring this order, because according to a report of Tarent, their homepage still contained statements such as "Linux end users can be held liable for infringement upon SCO's IP" - even after the provisional order was in effect.

Tarent's lawyer Till Jaeger is glad that the court has confirmed that SCO's expressions can be seen as "very damaging" to his company, especially because these claims have to do with very sensitive aspects of Linux development.
"These totally unproven claims cost other companies a lot of money, because people tend to get afraid (FUD)."

SCO can not be reached to comment on this matter.

In june, Managing Director Hans Bayer of SCO Germany said in an interview by C't [a well known and respected IT magazine in Germany and the Netherlands] that "his company intended to do exactly as the order stated. The violation was a mistake, it did not happen deliberately".

Disclaimer: Neither English nor German is my native tongue (and it shows :P), so I hope there are not too many stupid mistakes in my translation.

"Hundreds of files!"

[VernonNemitz]

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.

Re:greedy yanks

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, those Europeans really suffer. Having their education, healthcare and safety. Those poor repressed sods. And instead of a constitution, they only have a constitution. Worst, their freedom of speech is laughable, they're not even allowed to lie!

Retarded

[Quintin Stone]

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.

This is just plain stupid. How can the author write with a straight face two contradictory sentences, one right after the other? Either you saw the Unix code and compared it to the Linux code, or you did not. If you didn't see the Unix code, how can you sit there and say that it's identical to the Linux code?

Re:Retarded

[quantum bit]

Either you saw the Unix code and compared it to the Linux code, or you did not. If you didn't see the Unix code, how can you sit there and say that it's identical to the Linux code?

I know this has been said a hundred times, but even if they are identical it doesn't prove that Linux copied the code from System V. There are 3 possibilities, in no particular order:

A. Linux copied code from System V
B. System V copied code from Linux
C. Both Linux and System V copied code from a third party

Given that access to the System V source code is much more tightly controlled than the Linux source code, B and C are logically more probable than A Additionally, B is a GPL violation for whoever did the copying.

C is probably likely for the networking code -- both are derived from BSD code, which is legal as long as they keep the copyright notice. I'm guessing this is similar for JFS as well.

Re:Retarded

[NetworkImpossible]

Thing is, this is irrelevant. The mere presence of the same code in both the Linux kernel and any version of Sys V Unix proves nothing. The examples they have shown so far have come from prior art -- one of them is in Kernighan and Ritchie's C book (1973), for crying out loud.

Imagine yourself as a schoolteacher. Alice and Bob turn in the same paper. Who copied whom? Alice, Bob, or both of them from a third party? Now imagine Alice telling you Bob copied her paper, but she won't show you her paper, she just wants you to whack Bob one.

Put another way, who has built a completely "clean-room" unix-like system? There are thirty years of cross-pollination and code sharing here.

This PC magazine article will send SCOX higher, which is the objective of the whole game. Apart from this suit, SCO's fundamentals are entirely negative, but look at the stock. 1 year linear chart The rubes (and PC mag readers) buying it now will be shocked when the suit implodes and SCOX returns to the status quo ante.

Re:the big question nobody asks

[The Terminator]

It is to be paid to the government as all fines in Germany

one thousand knives and ten thousand pieces

[auferstehung]

Legitimate claims would be devastating.

Imagine SCO having to show up at court in a thousand different places at a thousand different times. Imagine the billable hours, travel expenses. Imagine the default judgements for not showing up. Imagine the leins on SCO property for not paying. Imagine SCO cedit rating going through the floor.

See small claims FAQ.

...or 10 days...

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget, the ruling actually states that it's 10000 euros or 10 days in a German jail for the CEO.

Don't drop the soap, Darl!

So basically,

[pkp_gl211]

this is just a uneventful story about a fine for a court procedure violation and the slashdot summary for this article is misleading. Huh, havent seen that one before.

Oh and its all Ashcroft's fault.

Babelfish Translation (a little funny of course)

[Glasswire]

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.

Best Nelson Voice warming up...

[!Squalus]

"Ha ha!"

It's only $10,000, but it is a start. I guess this means the Heise/Boies/McBride/Sontag/Stowell show is on hold, eh? Either that or the poor German SCO Mgr. is off to jail.

I can imagine this in Utah:

McB: What is barratry?

Sontaggie: I dunno, I only do what I am told.

McB: (muttering below breath) Stupid, yes-man, marketroid (now shouting...) Lawyer, get out there and put a spin on this - now!

H: Well, if we do anything, then they may rise the fines or put someone in jail in Germany...

McB: So? I am in Utah! I want to sue every German now! Put out a press release! We declare Germany in violation of our Intellectual property, and they hate Mormons too!

H: I don't know how our German employees will...

McB: Somebody better get this written and in the German papers by this afternoon too.

H: But..

McB: But what? I am in Utah dammit. Stupid German Courts can't touch me. Bill G. hisself is backing my play, so shut up and do as I tell ya.

The above parody is provided via the Not Ready For Evidenciary Players. We enjoy bringing you this daily laugh at the lives of some really screwed up people.

OT: Babelfish in HHGTTG

[TrentC]

But it does make me wonder if perhaps the Babelfish in HHGTTG didn't actually work that well. Thanks to the fish, no one ever bothered to learn anyone else's languages, but how do they know it's an accurate translation? Maybe the fish doesn't do any better than our poor software-based fish, but the bad grammar was fixed by the character's brains/the editor. At least it's amusing to think of all the aliens communicating in babelfish-like translations.

No, if you've read the book, you'd know that the fact the babelfish did in fact translate people's meaning and intent perfectly was why it led to larger wars and more violence than any other cause in history :)

Jay (=

Re:OT: Babelfish in HHGTTG

[Chris Burke]

Oh yeah, I forgot that bit. Heh.

A manual translation:

[Corvus V Corax]

google and babelfish translate some stuff wrong, but mine is far from perfect - due to my incompetence with judical english and the fact that it is really difficult to translate the complex german sentence structure into halfway-readable english.
(I tried nevertheless)

SCO Germany has to pay 10.000 EUR penalty fine.

This ruling of the district court Munich 1 is based on an interim injunction of the Tarent corporation and the "LinuxTag" organisation against SCO Germany.
Subsequently the company must not claim that linux would contain illegimate aquired intelectual property of SCO.
SCO ought to have infringed upon that on their homepage, wherefore Tarent had applyed for a "order law-suit???" in June.

According to a statement of the Tarent GmbH the court accuses SCO of "negligent behaviour" when operating their company-homepage.
There ought to have been readable the "End-users, who use the linux software could be hold liable for violations of intellectual property of SCO"-claim, even after the interim injunction against that.

Tarent-attorney Till Jaeger sees himself confirmed with this court decision,
that the claims of SCO are to be seen as "massive ???business-hurting??? expressions", which affect an "extremely sensible domain".
???With un-proven claims there would be made business at the expense of peoples fear.???
Nobody is reachable for a statement at SCO Germany right now.
Hans Bayer, CEO of SCO germany emphasized against c't (a computer magazine of heise.de) about the apply for an "order law-suit???" in early June:
"Our intention was, to act conform." and the approach against the interim injunction would not have been intentional. (anw/c't) (translation - Corvus)

Top 10 Things to do with your SCO Invoice

[c1ay]

NewsForge has released their top 10 things to do with your SCO Linux Invoice.

Re:German FUD-suppression system superior to USA's

[0123456]

"You're young, healthy and I presume able to have a decent insurance (or you haven't had the pleasure to fall through one of their loopholes yet), but you'll change your tone once you're no longer deemed "productive"..."

By the time we're that old, the Boomers will have bankrupted the nation to pay for their pensions and "free" healthcare by stealing money from our pockets. My generation will suffer the most from the evils of the welfare state, because we'll be forced to pay for welfare for the old farts, but by the time we get to their age it will be dead and gone. So excuse me if I want to see the whole thing shut down before I have to pay 80+% tax rates.

Fine for an injunction

[garyevesson]

I may be wrong, but from the translation it seems to me that SCO is being fined for breaching an injunction. If that is the case then it has no bearing on their guilt or innocence (as much as we might like it to...)

Re:We can only hope [so OT its funny]

[iocat]

There are a lot of expressions and words in American English that are actually more archaic than those in English English -- that is, they were used in Britain at some point, but have since died out, but continue in the US (and sometimes Canada). Especially terms from the South, such as a "poke" for a "bag." Not that I've ever heard anyone say "poke" in northeastern Tennessee, but you get the drift.

My guess is

[mcc]

Probably Darl is just going to pretend this didn't happen, not say a word about it, and hope that the mindless frenzy of stockbuyers don't even notice it happened because it was a news article in german instead of a press release in english.

And the stockbuyers probably *won't* notice. In fact, SCO's stock price for today is up *already*. Sigh..

Bah...

[blueforce]

$10,800 - That's 16 license fees, no sweat.

Re:Bah...

[cant_get_a_good_nick]

Thats 16 cheap licenses, remember they're gonna double it after Oct 15th...

Re:Bah...

[spektr]

$10,800 - That's 16 license fees, no sweat.

But on the other hand they have only one undisclosed customer who bought an undisclosed number of licences for their undisclosed code.

So maybe the game is 16 to 1 for us!

SCO's Claims appeared on their website...

[Eric Damron]

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.

I find it interesting that this came from Germany

[Sycraft-fu]

Because it seems to jive with other evidence I've found that Germany has some very strict "thruth in advertising" laws. I've never had anyone confirm it (don't know any Germans) but it strongly seems to be the case.

I first noticed it with pro audio equipment. When a company quotes SNR stats at you about their pro sound card, it is almost always marketing BS. They quote you the SNR of the D/A or A/D converters themselves, not the effective SNR with all the supporting circutry taken into account. This is, of course, a more impressive number since the supporting circutry isn't perfect and degrades sound quality. This is accepted practise in the US, and is the same as chip companies quoting theortical Gflop numbers at you that you'll never see off of paper. Well, this isn't the case with any German card I've ever used. All the numbers are the no-bullshit, check-it-yourself, actul performance of the actual unit.

I suspect that's where this kind of injunction came from. LinuxTag said "They are lying about us in their ads (or offical company releases, same thing)" and the court said "Ok, SCO, you need to shut up until we have a hearing to determine the truth of your claims". SCO violated that order and is now in trouble for it.

Here it seems to more work that they can go around making claims UNTIL they are shown to be false, then they have to shut up.

manual translation

[Apogee]

Hope I did better than the fish ...

SCO must pay a monetary fine

SCO Germany has to pay a fine of 10'000 Euro. The basis for this ruling of the district court Munich I is an injunction (trans: a rather loose translation of "einstweilige Verfgung", a German legal term, and IANAL) of both the Tarent company and the LinuxTag exposition. According to this injunction, SCO may not allege that Linux contains illegally acquired intellectual property of SCO. SCO apparently violated this injuction on their home page, and for this reason, Tarent filed for legal court proceedings.

According to a press release of Tarent GmbH, the court blamed SCO to have behaved negligently in the operation of their company home page. Even after the injunction, the accusation that "end users who use the software Linux, can be held accountable for violations of intellectual rights held by SCO" could be read on the home page.

Till Jaeger, the lawyer representing Tarent, sees the court ruling as a confirmation that SCO's claims have to be considered as "massively damaging to business", and that they concern a "very sensitive area". At the expense of other parties, Unproven allegations are used to make money out of fear. Nobody at SCO Germany was available for comment at present; regarding the filing of legal court proceedings, Hans Bayer, CEO of SCO Germany, told c't already in the beginning of June: "Our intention was to comply with the ruling." He claimed that the violation against the injunction had not been deliberate. (anw/c't)

Correction:

[funwithBSD]

There are actually 1010 items listed.

Re:Correction:

[c1ay]

Did you mean 1011?

Re:Correction:

[Zigg]

No, read it more closely. There's 1011.

Re:Correction:

[funwithBSD]

yes, well, read the whole thing after the snide remark.

1010 is closer to 1011 than 10, so there!

actually the third one

[Apogee]

Just saw that there are two manual translations (excellent ones, nonetheless) have already been posted. Well, whatever, now you have a little variety ;-)

Re:actually the third one

[technos]

I think this last one has been the best of the lot tho..

Puppet judges

[rruvin]

The best we can do is waste a couple hundred million in tax dollars on a useless court case that is headed by a puppet judge.

A puppet judge? Whose puppet? I suppose you also have proof for that sort of allegation?

Oh, wait, I forgot. This is Slashdot.

"Mental property"

[Ricin]

The fish said it! Much more suiting than IP really.

Will this have any effect on Software patents?

[vonsneerderhooten]

I have been made aware that the european parliament is going to vote on legislation regarding software patents. Here is an excellent FAQ. I understand the vote has been delayed until Sept. 22. My question is will this ruling have any effect on the vote, one way or another? Though I am a shameless Windows user, I have been known to boot into knoppix now and then, and they have stopped development due to this pending legislation. I'd like to know people's thoughts on this and how it effects the future of linux development.

-D

Re:Will this have any effect on Software patents?

[pe1chl]

You may have misunderstood the situation. The Knoppix site is one of several that has put up a replacement page to show what would happen if software patents would be accepted. The same was done on the Mplayer site. This is a protest action, not a stop of development.

Re:Will this have any effect on Software patents?

[vonsneerderhooten]

Thanks for the clarification. My question remains unanswered, though. Will the ruling against SCO have any effect on this legislation being passed or not? If this legislation is passed, will SCO have more leverage in asserting their IP rights? If not, will SCO simply cower back into the shadows? Any answers or rambling rhetoric is appreciated.

-D

Re:Will this have any effect on Software patents?

[pe1chl]

If there is any effect from recent news, I would expect it to be from the EOLAS case, as that is about software patents.
The SCO case is not about patents but about a contract.

Re:Small Price

[El]

Great! By my reading, they've just patented SNMP!

Re:We can only hope [so OT its funny]

[sydb]

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).

Just be happy

[robogun]

Remember when Monica Seles got stabbed in the back in Germany by a tennis fan who liked Steffi Graf?

The attacker, Gunther Parche, was sentenced rather lightly by the German court. He never served one day in jail.

He succeeded in his goal which was to put Graf back at No. 1. He succeeded in closing the formerly open interaction between fan and player. This sort of incident has not happened again, but the point is he succeeded. So be happy the court at least fined SCO ten grand.

A postscript, Monica Seles has ever since refused to set foot on German soil.

Re:Just be happy

[budgenator]

Yeah well I remember when a particualrly infamous terrorist, Badder, committed suicide in a german prison by shooting himself in the back nine times. Germans take care of business, their way, not ours. You can bet that Munich isn't paying SCO linux licence fees.

Re:f*cking slashdot...

[XavierXeon]

Ich liebe es wenn eine US Nachrichtenseite auf einem deutschen Artikel verwiest..... Scheis auf die Deutschen..... Uebersetzt diesen Scheis ihr faulen Bastarde....

(hope you like the translation)

Re:We can only hope [so OT its funny]

[another_mr_lizard]

Poke is still used throughout Scotland as slang for "bag". Oh, and thats British English, not English English.....

SCO Evidence on Freenet

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

apt translation

[ConfusedVorlon]

I like the translation - 'Mental Property'
Humour in the machine?

Re:greedy yanks

[peterprior]

Hey.. I'm all for spanking... if fact, I sometimes pay good money for it :P

Re:"A is better than B"

[Alomex]

I already own a home with 0% house. My home is generally called "an apartment in a high rise", for your future reference.

I see that you like being lied to. Good for you, you are in the right country for that. Let's celebrate that with some of that 0% lemon lemonade that you seem so willing to drink.

HA!

[m0rphm0nkey]

HA!

It's good that slashdot has the power to make me smile. GO GERMANY!! I guess I've got my team for the next world cup match! I'll keep yelling for them to sco mo.

Re:German FUD-suppression system superior to USA's

[ScrewMaster]

Well, it is a Liberal Democratic construct (see Great Society) but that's not the point. The problem with welfare in the U.S. is not conceptual, it is pratical: it is so laden with fraud and criminal abuse that those that need and deserve it rarely get it.

0 to 10k euro in no time

[MoFoQ]

10k Euro is still infinitely better than 0 (the usual price of linux).

Plus, it sets a precedent. Hopefully, the US courts aren't dumbf*cks like they usually are with regard to tech rulings but one can only hope.

Now I have to get back to my pitchforks and torches and paint the German flag on them.

Re:We can only hope [so OT its funny]

[XO]

I've got a friend who's family lives in West Virginia. I can't understand them. At all. but at least now I know what the hell a poke is!

what is the European Commission doing?

[The Lynxpro]

Considering how much the European Commission (EC) has advocated open source software in their own common market, you'd think they'd be going after the European subsidiaries of SCO. The EC certainly is not afraid of Microsoft, Boeing or AOL, so why should they be afraid to go after the pipsqueaks that constitute SCO? Their [SCO's] business/legal behaviors have to run counter to some European trade law somewhere on the books.

Re:Overzealous regulators; let the market decide

[soft_guy]

Sounds too optimistic to me. What they really do is lobby and bribe the government to look the other way while they run their protection racket, strongarm competitors, etc. In the worst cases, they get the government to hobble or outlaw competitors, or else just give them big subsidies directly.

Look at how the passenger railways were put out of business by cars in the US. A mixture of harsh regulations on the railroads plus subsidies on highways.

What to expect from IT industry publications?

[dcavanaugh]

You don't live long in the publication industry by bad-mouthing your top advertisers. Microsoft gets remarkably gentle treatment from the press, when you consider that 18-year-olds are exploiting security holes pretty much at will. Now we have the SoBig and MsBlaster fiascos; I think an article directed against Linux would be just what the doctor ordered to take the heat off Redmond for a while.

Microsoft buys lots of full-page ads. How many ads does a monopoly need? Coincidence or conspiracy? You decide.

Libel

[Izago909]

Why hasn't anyone sued SCO for libel? If they keep sitting there shouting unproven statements that harm and defame linux developers and distro's, then can't someone file suit?

Re:Libel

[Fritzed]

I'm afraid in a sense the SCO group is using Linux's greatest strength against it. There is no owner of linux that is able to claim that they are being harmed by libel. Red hat cannot even do this because they technically do not sell linux. They sell a packaged bundle of usefull linux tools and support that happens to come with linux as well. Of course I'm not a lawyer.,br>
-> Fritz

No word on FTC complaint...

[SnakeStu]

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...

Re:Overzealous regulators; let the market decide

[Grishnakh]

Right, but then look at how they don't have most of these problems in Germany. Obviously, they're doing something right that we're not.

But we'll of course never learn, because America has a severe case of NIH syndrome.

Signature

[Alomex]

Actually it is funny how people just don't get it, as they are so used to C's twisted arithmetic rules.

Operations like = and / have well defined meanings in basic arithmetic that we all learn from elementary school onwards. This creates a very natural expectation of what are they supposed to work. C breaks this expectation gratuitously, in a bug inducing manner.

Say, suppose someone labels a lever "fire alarm, pull here" and then connect it to a gasoline dousing device. One day, a fire breaks out, and Joe Blow pulls the lever. As is is expected the fire gains in intensity. Would you say that Joe is a fool or would you rather blame the person who labeled the gasoline lever "fire alarm, pull here" instead of "gasoline activation device"?

When C chose to label integer division "/" instead of div or someother thing that cannot be confused with real division, they did exactly that.

Re:Signature

[gratiartis]

Using parentheses better might help ...
1/2*3.14 is much easier to read as:
(1/2) * 3.14

To be clear, "/" also applies to division of real numbers. It's just that if both sides of the equation are integers then it will carry out integer division.

1/2 * 3.14 = (1/2) * 3.14 = 0 * 3.14

Admittedly, this does make things difficult to read. When you're scanning through your code, it's hard to spot immediately that the output might not be what you expect.

It's possible to obfuscate any language, so as you become familiar with features such as this, you tend to write them out differently. For instance, you might write this out as ((1.0/2.0) * 3.14) or you could explicitly cast each as a float as in:
(float)( ( (float)1 / (float)2 ) * (float)3.14 )

Re:Signature

[smallpaul]

When C was developed in 1972, people had a very different expectation of usability in programming languages. Programmers had more time to learn languages in their entirety and they understood that they were working at such a low level that intuitions from the real world would usually be wrong. Anyhow, even today we use symbols in very confusing ways. In real-world math "=" means "is equal to", not "assign value to." Imagine if you saw an equation like: "x = x * 2" in the real-world. You would "solve" it be saying that x must be 0.

Re:Signature

[Alomex]

C is not a language for Joe Blow. C is a language for Real Programmers (when the're two lazy to just use a sector editor and hack in the raw binary). You probably can't even keep lose and loose straight.

Such a typical response from the *nix community: its the user's fault.

Re:Signature

[Alomex]

I agree. I don't think the "/" was a particularly bad mistake when C got introduced the early 70s. However it should have been fixed later on.

Novices often think it's impossible to fix mistakes in a language. This is not so. Do you know that sqrt(2) was similarly bug inducing, but got fixed in the first ANSI version and now it does what one would expect?

Re:Signature

[smallpaul]

The cost/benefit of a change is hard to measure and the more code it breaks the harder it is to justify.

Re:Signature

[Alomex]

The cost/benefit of a change is hard to measure and the more code it breaks the harder it is to justify.

Actually this is incorrect in two ways:

(1) there is no reason why a fix in a language should break old code if done well. For example, latex had a radical redesign when it went to latex2e without breaking a single line of old code. How? easy, by having the first line indicate the version being used.

(2) the amount of code already written is tiny compared to the code that will be written in the future. So we can afford to incovenience present users, because of the savings to future users.

Re:Overzealous regulators; let the market decide

[Grishnakh]

I could be mistaken, but I believe the original poster was attempting to be sarcastic.

Re:Prisons...

[Xerithane]

Yeah, well some asshole murdered my aunt because she walked into her house while he was burgalarizing it.

Fuck his human rights. His 5 year old son was outside in the car waiting for him to finish. That's great fathering. They are criminals who are being punished. When a kid gets grounded, do you cry about his rights?

This just pisses me off when I read about people who cry for the criminals. Let them fucking rot.

(I'm talking of violent criminals, murders and rapists, btw.)

not true

[amcguinn]

This is not a precedent (or precedence for that matter). It is a fine for contempt of court. It is not damages to any company.

Re:Why are you slashweenies supporting this fine?

[Tim Ward]

Could you please specify why you think that there is a lack of freedom of speech in Germany in this case?

Well, it seems to me[1] that comments posted on this site about Microsoft (to pick an example at random) are much "worse" (in terms of being both rude and lacking in verifiable accuracy) than anything SCO has said, but the denizens of Slashdot seem to approach the two rather differently.

Denizens of Slashdot seem to support the freedom to say rude things about other people in the USA but to applaud the inability to say similar rude things about different other people in Germany. My comment was about the double standards of posters here, not really about German law.

[1] Yes that was me posting as AC earlier (from another machine, haven't a clue what my password is).

Because the case is

[Baki]

not whether linux infringes on their IP or not, but that they were forbidden to make further public claims about it until proof exists (to prevent FUD). Since the continued, in spite of this prohibition, that have very clearly violated this and must pay the fine.

It gets the ball rolling...

[osguru]

Its a start, and thats what this whole mess needed. We can't ignore it, cause they won't shut up about it - so to SCO in the infamous words of Snoop Dogg:

"Right back up in your motherfuckin' ass"

I agree that this whole situation is nonsense, and shouldn't be going even close to as far as it has gone - but right now the industry has no choice left but to stand our ground and fight back.

SCO continues to talk nonsense everyday... when they are confronted directly they dodge it, ignore it, or hide behind their lawyers with it... Then they switch gears, and start talking more shit to provoke the same response.

I am glad to see someone catch there ass out there, no matter how small, and hope this will encourage other places to do the same.

Whatever happens to SCO at this point they brought on themselves.

Re:f*cking slashdot...

[NetworkImpossible]

You spelled ScheiB wrong, Kumpel. (Scheiss, if my ess-et doesn't come through properly... HTML is Scheiss indeed...)

Re:We can only hope [so OT its funny]

[budgenator]

Yes but if someone told you "Don't buy a pig in a poke" you'd know that it meant not to buy a pig, in a bag without examining it first. yet this is what $co wants us to do, buy a license to use some vague system V IP, without even showing us the supposedly miss-appropriated code. Even vaguer is that the license is to "hold harmless" so if alleged IP isn't even there we have no recourse for damages because they did in fact hold us harmless!

Re:We can only hope [so OT its funny]

[Phragmen-Lindelof]

I was told in Edinburgh this summer that deep-fat fried Mars bars are popular in rural communities about 20 km from the city; the Royal Society of Edinburgh is concerned about the health of citizens of Scotland. While I am sure everything served in Scotland is better than the equivalent item in the US, I would not try some things. (Now two months in Leipzig was great.)

what happened to Nintendo?

[xlyz]

just curious

SCO's 'patents'

[eniu!uine]

"Of course, SCO/Caldera being an American company trying to enforce claims in a foreign country that doesn't (yet) have software patents might be partially why."

Do not take this personally, but I am sick and tired of people talking about patents in reference to SCO. They don't have any patents. I did a patent search on them and they have no patents on the things they make claims about. They are talking about copyright infringement pure and simple!!!

Re:German FUD-suppression system superior to USA's

[eniu!uine]

"foreign policy (El Salvador, look it up and weep) and we can't even get our housekeeper and her husband insured."

That is rough man... rough. I don't know what I'd do if I couldn't get my household staff insured... the butler, the housekeepers, the chauffer... all without proper healthcare. What if they fall of the fourth floor balcony while cleaning windows or cut themselves cooking my meals. I feel your pain, but isn't it nice that we always have the option of relocating to another continent entirely?

I for one...

[PReDiToR]

...welcome our new European overlords

Question: How does this affect the US website

[zakezuke]

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.

Re:I find it interesting that this came from Germa

[thisgooroo]

and the court said "Ok, SCO, you need to shut up until we have a hearing to determine the truth of your claims".

no. the court forbade them to repeat their claims without providing some evidence. my understanding was that if they had backed up their claims, they would not have been obliged to wait for a court decision on their claims

Re:German FUD-suppression system superior to USA's

[zpok]

That's cute.

Yes, I'm priviliged.
I'm educated, well fed and groomed by the country I grew up in.

And if we decide to go to another continent to see what we can do, we even get paid for that. The shame, right?

Instead of making sarcastic remarks about that, you could consider it a career opportunity. There are plenty of needs here in the so called soft sector.

And when you're here, you could consider it a good idea to spread around what you have. In countries like this, it means - apart from doing what you do - getting a help and NOT pay her badly.
And insure her, her family and whoever needs it. If you think that's bourgeous you haven't traveled much.

Let me give you an insight: you get sick here, then you lose your job and if you're not like us (privileged white stuff) you eventually die.

What's shocking is the fact that it's considered normal, also by Americans. I don't know, you're the self proclaimed land of the free, I somehow expected more.
Disclaimer: there are some great initiatives and people from America here, doing real things, whether they have a housekeeper or not.

Re:German FUD-suppression system superior to USA's

[zpok]

OK, my response was way over the top. Your comments were funny, if intentional or not.

Part of it is feeling guilty about having in a country with so many have nots.

Re:We can only hope [so OT its funny]

[pyrrhonist]

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).

Yeesh, that made me really hungry. You don't see it too much in other parts of the US, but up here in New England, you generally see jars of vinegar sauce on the tables specifically for fries (at least at non-chain restaurants anyway).

Re:German FUD-suppression system superior to USA's

[eniu!uine]

I didn't mean it to be an insult... I was just chuckling to myself thinking about healthcare for my housekeeper. If only that were my problem. I take care of old people for a living. I'll have a housekeeper when Darl McBride admits he's wrong.

Re:German FUD-suppression system superior to USA's

[zpok]

Yeah, I really went over the top with my rant there...

Major Setback, Rising Stock

[Nishi-no-wan]

- Seriously, I think this will be viewed as a major setback by SCO.

Why is it that every "major setback" SCO suffers is followed by a rise is stock price? I do wish we could stop them from profitting from these major setbacks.

Re:f*cking slashdot...

[XavierXeon]

yes the letter normally is an s-z or ess-zet and yes you could write a double s instead, but fuck spelling.

And i am not your mate (Kumpel)

Thanks for not listening

This is NOT the IBM/SCO trial

[GerardM]

In Germany SCO was gagged for spoiling the environment for Linux companies. SCO spoiled things by claiming that SCO IP is in Linux without providing proof.

Therefore as long as SCO does not provide proof it falls foul of the German court order and have to pay a penalty as they just did.

The IBM case has nothing to do with it. SCO can say in an American court what it likes. I am sure that the American judge wants proof from SCO in order to validate their point.

Thanks,
Gerard

Re:We can only hope [so OT its funny]

[Fat Boy unslim]

covered in salt and sauce.

A ya' east coaster you - I only eat my chips with salt and vinegar. ;-)

cheers

High quality translation...

[rjch]

Gotta *love* BabelFish... :)

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.

It's the only web service I know of that churns out more garbage than Slashdot... :p

Yeah Fuck Human rights!

[Moritz Moeller - Her]

NOT. Human rights mean just that. Every human has these rights. EVERY HUMAN. Not just your aunt, not just you not just Americans. Even criminals, even mass murderers have human rights.

This does not mean, that he can't and should not be punished. Of course criminals should be punished, as provided by law. This (in Germany) would mean a life in prison, but it would not mean nearly certain humiliation, abuse, rape or anything else.

If a child gets grounded, it is supposed to stay at home. Nothing else.
It should not be raped by older brothers, be humiliated or be forced to sleep on a square foot, as criminals in some US prisons are forced.

If a convicted criminal gets a prison term, his freedom is taken from him as punishment, not his Human Rights as such.

Re:Yeah Fuck Human rights!

[Xerithane]

NOT. Human rights mean just that. Every human has these rights. EVERY HUMAN. Not just your aunt, not just you not just Americans. Even criminals, even mass murderers have human rights.

Sorry, they took someone elses human rights and they don't get theirs anymore. It's a pennance. A fine. If I steal your money, I don't get to keep it. I pay a fine.

If a convicted criminal gets a prison term, his freedom is taken from him as punishment, not his Human Rights as such.

I'm glad you feel so well about it. How many family members have you had that have been murdered?

Re:Source of term "Babelfish"

[Chris Burke]

Ralph Babel?

Uh-huh. :)

Irony

[MacWiz]

Germany basically adopted our Constitution and are actively protecting its values and the rights of its citizens while the US government is actively taking our rights away bit by bit.

While we allow the music police and now have the Patriot Act (which is the greatest move toward Big Brother ever conceived), Microsoft is in charge of national computer security (the closest human counterpart to Big Brither and the anti-Christ), the RAVE act (making the sale of water an indication of drug use), the upcoming Extasy legislation (designed to make dancing, music and public gatherings illegal) and monopolies rule the country, our German counterparts have thrown out Microsoft, are protecting privacy and adopting open source.

Why is it that Germany acts more and more like it is the United States every day, while the United States acts more and more like Nazi Germany?

Human rights misunderstandings.

[Moritz Moeller - Her]

Man, loosen up. You are not arguing conclusively. If someone steals money, they have to give it back. But they can (minus damages and fines) keep their own money.

But human rights are not like money. They are inalienable. See the preamble of the UN charta of human rights: "... recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world ..."

Or if you are one of those isolationists, who don't trust the United Nations of this planet, look in the fundamental declaration of independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Unalienable rights, mister! That your aunt was killed did not take the human rights of the criminal away.

The US constitution also forbids unusual and cruel punishment, which rape and other things would be.

Re:Human rights misunderstandings.

[Xerithane]

Unalienable rights, mister! That your aunt was killed did not take the human rights of the criminal away.

Wrong. I say it does, and so does reality. Cry me a river. There is no unalienable right, there is only power and perversion of power. Nobody has a right to anything, but you all think you do. Life doesn't give anybody rights, life isn't fair, it simply is. The way the system works now, criminals are treated like animals.

And I agree with that treatment, sorry if you don't. Like I said before, fuck 'em all. If they didn't want to get beaten like a dog and raped, they wouldn't have committed the crime. Nobody forced them to be criminals. Fine with me they go to pound-em-in-the-ass prison.

No rights at all? No justice!

[Moritz Moeller - Her]

Only power, means that you do not believe in rights, law and justice. Quite amazing then, that you complain about the killing of your aunt. Did she not have a right to live?

If she could not defend herself, or was not defended by others and if the other person, you want to see tortured, had the power to kill her, then in your twisted and in my opinion not very well thought through world view, everything worked out perfectly.

The criminal probably - like you! - said fuck the rights of others. Well, if that is the logical consequence of your - power overrules justice and human rights world view.

I do not subscribe to it. I think a moral person should respect the rights of others wherever at all possible.

Re:No rights at all? No justice!

[Xerithane]

I do not subscribe to it. I think a moral person should respect the rights of others wherever at all possible.

Bingo! And when a person who is immoral removes "human rights", they are no longer worthy of those rights.

A moral human deserves all rights, but life isn't fair and they are not rights. They are always privledges. There is no such thing as right or wrong, nor an unalienable right. There is just life, and looking out for what is best and paying the consequences for your actions.

Let those who reap what the sow continue reaping.

Re:No rights at all? No justice!

[Moritz Moeller - Her]

When you get older or wiser, you might face situations, where you are being immoral by some points of views. There is no black or white. Some basic rights always remain.

Re:No rights at all? No justice!

[Xerithane]

When you get older or wiser, you might face situations, where you are being immoral by some points of views. There is no black or white. Some basic rights always remain.

The sign of believing in rights and wrongs is the sign of immaturity and not accepting that life doesn't adhere to human imposed rules.

In other words, I think the same for you.

Grail-Tech(TM) Translation Follows

[Grail]

The Regional Court of Munich stiffed SCO GmbH Germany for 10 thousand big ones, necaise SCO refused to STFU as they were told to yonks ago.

Tarent lawyer Till Hunter seemed quite proud of the outcome, especially since SCO's pissing and moaning about Linux users being a bunch of Intellectual Property scavengers was putting people off. The court went easy on them though, since the SCO brass claimed that they really had been trying to do the right thing (really!).

At the time that this story was being scratched out, noone from SCO was willing to stick their heads out and make a noise. They're probably all crying into the holes where their paychecks are supposed to be.

Ripper, mate!