Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

SCO Fined in Munich For Linux Claims

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the can-we-do-that-here-too dept.

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.

56 of 436 comments (clear)

  1. We can only hope by mao+che+minh · · Score: 5, Insightful
    $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).

    1. Re:We can only hope by Richardsonke1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      "Men lie."
      "Yeah, about sleeping with other women, but never about bioluminescent plankton."
      -Dan Brown
    2. Re:We can only hope by JanneM · · Score: 5, Informative

      That's just a fine for non-compliance with a court order. Suing SCO over defamation or damaged business is a different matter - and something that is likely a lot easier with this fine as a background.

      --
      Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
    3. Re:We can only hope by presroi · · Score: 4, Informative
      $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.
    4. Re:We can only hope by presroi · · Score: 5, Informative
      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.
    5. Re:We can only hope by Zeinfeld · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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.

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
    6. Re:We can only hope by Brahmastra · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    7. Re:We can only hope by mr_z_beeblebrox · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    8. Re:We can only hope by AEton · · Score: 4, Funny

      $10,800 USD seems a bit low

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

      --
      We recently had heard in the office over one of the Yellow Machine that's made by Anthology Solutions.
    9. Re:We can only hope by arivanov · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    10. Re:We can only hope by azzy · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    11. Re:We can only hope by Valdrax · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I still don't understand exactly how Jackson's actions were grounds for an appeal. From the start of the case, Jackson seemed to have no bias one way or another. He didn't even use a computer for doing his paperwork from what I understand. By the end of the trial, he'd had to deal with Gates's Clinton-esque waffling over the meaning of commonly used English words, repeated use of faked evidence, and mountains of testimony of contemptuous monopolous action. Why exactly would forming a negative opinion about a company that had so blatantly flaunted their disregard for the law and for his own court room be a bad thing? It seems utterly natural to me that Jackson would come out of the case with a severe distaste for a company that had pulled such flagrantly disrepectful antics in his own court room.

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    12. Re:We can only hope by tomhudson · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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 :-)

    13. Re:We can only hope by tlk+nnr · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.
    14. Re:We can only hope by Rogerborg · · Score: 5, Insightful

      >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.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    15. Re:We can only hope by gweihir · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  2. Karma Whoring by euphline · · Score: 5, Informative
    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)

    1. Re:Karma Whoring by MuParadigm · · Score: 4, Informative


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

  3. Babelfish Link by telstar · · Score: 4, Informative

    Or link to Babelfish and save us the trouble.

  4. Not the amount by TuataraShoes · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Surely in vain the net is spread in the sight of any bird -- Proverbs 1:17
  5. *Chink* Chisel away by curtisk · · Score: 4, Interesting
    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

    --

    Sehr geehrter Toilettenbenutzer!

  6. It's the principle that counts by heironymouscoward · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    --
    Ceci n'est pas une signature
  7. In other news by mao+che+minh · · Score: 4, Funny
    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.

    ;)

  8. Contempt of court? by Picass0 · · Score: 4, Funny

    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 :)

    1. Re:Contempt of court? by mikeee · · Score: 4, Funny

      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!

    2. Re:Contempt of court? by j7953 · · Score: 4, Informative
      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.

      --
      Sig (appended to the end of comments I post, 54 chars)
  9. What do you call 10,000 Euros? by advocate_one · · Score: 4, Funny
    A good start...

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

    --
    Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
  10. Various national courts by TWX · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    1. Re:Various national courts by ninewands · · Score: 4, Informative
      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.
      --
      utter rubbish
  11. Will they stop? by GGardner · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?

    1. Re:Will they stop? by hughk · · Score: 4, Informative

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

      --
      See my journal, I write things there
  12. Re:FINED! for what? by peterprior · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  13. Re:FINED! for what? by Anita+Coney · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's a little more complicated than what was stated. A Linux group sued SCO in a German court for an injunction to stop SCO from making its claims without proof. The Linux group probably wanted to see the alleged proof and thought that SCO would turn over it over once it was sued.

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

    --
    If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
  14. Re:Overzealous regulators; let the market decide by bit01 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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).

  15. This is not about material issues. by wfberg · · Score: 5, Informative

    Please remember, this is not about the SCO case at all, but about false advertising. SCO was saying "linux users have to pay" even though this is an untested legal theory - it is for these misleading statements they now have to pay. If they later are proven to be right, they still made allegations out to be proven fact, which is a no-no in advertising, as far as Germany is concerned.

    Bear in mind the order restraining them from making such claims is only a prelimenary injunction. That means all is still to play for, though the likelihood of a judgement against SCO Deutschland is very high indeed.

    --
    SCO employee? Check out the bounty
    1. Re:This is not about material issues. by Alomex · · Score: 4, Informative


      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.

  16. Re:greedy yanks by peterprior · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  17. There is a funny game in Germany.. by presroi · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  18. According to by stephenbooth · · Score: 4, Informative

    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

    --
    "Don't write down to your readers, the only people less intelligent than you can't read" - Sign on Newspaper Office Wall
  19. There is some justice in this world, by pair-a-noyd · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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..

  20. Precis by Tiassa · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  21. Re:FINED! for what? by IWannaBeAnAC · · Score: 4, Informative
    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.

  22. Just https by Schoellix · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  23. Re:Now let's watch... by cioxx · · Score: 5, Informative

    Broker Recommendation: Strong Sell

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

  24. Manual Translation by ewn · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  25. pcmag gives undeserved credibility to SCO by asv108 · · Score: 5, Interesting
    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.

    1. Re:pcmag gives undeserved credibility to SCO by WCMI92 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Corporatism != Free Market
  26. First Scientology.... by Channard · · Score: 4, Funny

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

  27. Not about lying but about proof. by GerardM · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  28. Re:German FUD-suppression system superior to USA's by zpok · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "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 think, therefore I am...I think.
  29. Human Translation by cwernli · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  30. Death of a thousand cuts by auferstehung · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    --
    Logic is not Divine.
  31. Retarded by Quintin+Stone · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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?
    --

    "Prejudice is wrong; you should hate everyone the same."

  32. Best Nelson Voice warming up... by !Squalus · · Score: 4, Funny

    "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.

    --
    All Ad hominem replies happily ignored as the sender shall be deemed to lack the faculties to comprehend the equation.
  33. I find it interesting that this came from Germany by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  34. manual translation by Apogee · · Score: 4, Informative

    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)