Slashdot Mirror
SCO Fined in Munich For Linux Claims
nordi writes "heise.de reports (in German) that SCO Germany has to pay a fine of 10,000 Euros (~10,800 US$) because they kept on saying that Linux contains stolen intellectual property of SCO. In May a German court had decided that SCO Germany must not continue making those claims." Yes, it's auf Deutsch, so break out babelfish.
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).
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
They are being fined for continuing to make claims, when the german courts said they must not until the case goes to course.
The are in violation of the injuction made against them spreading FUD while the case runs, which was brought about by linuxtag.
It's a little more complicated than what was stated. A Linux group sued SCO in a German court for an injunction to stop SCO from making its claims without proof. The Linux group probably wanted to see the alleged proof and thought that SCO would turn over it over once it was sued.
The fact that SCO has still refused to show its proof is pretty good evidence to me that they don't have any.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
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).
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
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..
To make a short article shorter (and enlighten the German-impaired):
SCO Germany got fined 10,000 EUR because they transgressed against an injunction ordering them to remove from their web page any allegation that Linux contained ill-gotten IP of SCO's. Apparently they overlooked something when cleaning up their pages.
However, there was no judgment on whether or not these allegations are correct, so put the champagne back in the fridge, guys.
It has to be added that the sum that the court had deciced to charge against violation of the court decision was set to 250.000 Euros. The reason that it is only 10.000 Euros is that SCO "forgot" to remove all statements from their HTTPS server as well, thus not complying to the court decision. As this was only seen as a minor offense against the court decision, the sum was reduced.
Broker Recommendation: Strong Sell
http://biz.yahoo.com/z/a/s/scox.html
SCO Germany has to pay a 10000 Euro fine. This decision by the Landgericht Munchen I is based on a preliminary injunction against SCO, granted to the Tarent company and LinuxTag. According to it, SCO may not claim that Linux contains illegally obtained intellectual property from SCO. SCO has allegedly violated this on its homepage, therefore in June Tarent asked for a trial.
According to a Tarent GmbH statement, the court accuses SCO of "negligence" in running its company's homepage, which, even after the preliminary injunction allegedly read: "End users who use the Software Linux may be held liable for violations of SCO's intellectual property."
Tarent attorney Till Jaeger sees the court's decision as confirming that SCO's allegations are "massively business-damaging statements" concerning an "extremely sensitive issue." Unproven claims were used to do fear-induced business on the expense of others. SCO Germany is currently not available for comment. In early June, asked about the trial, SCO Germany CEO Hans Bayer emphasised: "Our intention was to comply." and that the violation of the preliminary incunction had not been intentional.
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.
"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.
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.