Slashdot Mirror
Germany Muzzles SCO
skyryder12 writes " We have news from Germany. It seems, according to Computerworld, that SCO Group GmbH (SCO's German branch) agreed, on February 18, 2004, to an out-of-court settlement between it and Univention and will refrain from saying in Germany some things it says in the US constantly. There are four things they have agreed not to say in Germany, on pain of a fine of 10,000 euros per offense -- that's about $12,500 USD -- and one thing they can't say unless they present proof within a month of the settlement date. Story at GrokLaw"
Finally some action against these guys.
I'm glad the european judicial systems are not as prone to SCO's legal guerilla tactics as the US system is.
SCO gets to try on a muzzle... this is happy news. My only question is if this settlement favours Univention or SCO? I guess if you look at it one way, it favours us all because we don't have to listen to SCO whine and complain in Germany. Oh wait a minute... their website can be reached from Germany, so does that count as an offense?
As a British guy, I hope we get similar things brought in in Britain soon.. SCO needs to be stopped once and for all, and this seems like a fine (excuse the pun) way to do it.
tim
That US law couldn't do such things?
We have news from Germany. It seems, according to Computerwoche, that SCO Group GmbH (SCO's German branch) agreed, on February 18, 2004, to an out-of-court settlement between it and Univention and will refrain from saying in Germany some things it says in the US constantly. There are four things they have agreed not to say in Germany, on pain of a fine of 10,000 euros per offense -- that's about $12,500 USD -- and one thing they can't say unless they present proof within a month of the settlement date.
Details of the settlement from the article:
I asked a couple of others who speak German to make sure this last was an accurate translation, even holding off on the story for half a day, because it still sounds a bit odd. Evidently, they can sue their own customers in Germany if they feel like it. Perhaps others can refine our understanding. The news article also says that they can't allege that proof of copyright violations will be presented soon, unless such proof is presented within a month after the settlement date, in which case, then SCO Group may continue to make that claim publicly.
Thanks primarily to doughnuts_lover, who did the initial translation for us.
Here is a snip from the German, for those who can readily understand it:
something which perhaps the US courts should do more often?
Watching from the sidelines, I'm sometimes disappointed at the trial by media and sensationalist reporting going on in the US. But then I'm not an American so maybe I'm out of touch.
Reality is what we taste, smell, see, hear and touch yet we cannot comprehend it...only approximate it.
Now, what will make the remainder of my day great is a falling SCO stock price. Now I just have to wait for the markets to open...
I'm sometimes disappointed at the trial by media
There is no "trial by media" ever, as the media is not capable of doing what the government does. All that happens is that people in the media exercize their first-amendment rights like anyone else.
Should it really have to take a court-order to make them be quiet? Things that have been on my list of things to ignore for a long time: 1. spam 2. banners 3. SCO-fud
If SCO has been finally quieted in Germany, why can they not put their money where their mouth is in the US, and show some proof for their bitchin'?
print 'Hello world!';
http://compbrain.net
I'm not a big supporter of S.U.S.E linux, but i'm sure this settlement made them relax a bit.
Unlike Americans who are born with the lawyer gene, Germans are born with the engineer gene. So this decision is not so surprising ;)
"Backups are for wimps. Real men upload their data to an FTP site and have everyone else mirror it." -- Linus Torvalds
Yeah this whole "free speech" thing is really a drag, i hope it's just a fad.
Now, if we can prove SCO / Scientology link SCO will be completely banned fro Germany.
Finally SCO Group GmbH is prohibited to threaten to sue Linux users unless they bought SCO Linux or Caldera Linux.
SCO is only allowed to threaten people that actually bought Caldera or SCO linux? Good thing I never bought either then...
Not only that, but it looks like their justice system has a sense of humor: SCO can't sue any Linux users except their own customers. That's comedy gold, right there. ;)
Auto-reply to ACs: "Truly, you have a dizzying intellect."
4) Finally SCO Group GmbH is prohibited to threaten to sue Linux users unless they bought SCO Linux or Caldera Linux.
Hello, Darl? This is irony calling.
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
This fifth statement had been left out:
they can't any anymore that their proof will turn up "real soon", unless they actually do it! That should cut down on the crap press-releases...
The court order (in German)
First the Germans do away with Nazis, then Scientology, then SCO!!
Seems like they are doing pretty good (At least recently...and they have a powerful Green Party!)
Post apocalyptic gaming goodness
2:00, nothing yet on either Reuters or Bloomberg news...
Lets hope its true!
DEUTSCHLAND DEUTSCHLAND Uber Alles!
Using that phrase is more than a little insensitive. In fact, using it in Germany can get you in about as much trouble as SCO can after this.
What it really should be is that they are not allowed to say that Linux users can be sued unless they buy the SCO kind.
No, not the story. Well kinda...
Didn't LinuxTag do the same thing? Force SCO to stop putting out unfounded claims in Germany?
Gag Slashdot yourself -- uncheck "Caldera" under your Homepage settings.
I should fine you 10 000 Euros for having to tell you this after it has been mentioned in every fscking SCO story. Besides, I would think a story relating to a case that threatens Free and open source software would be considered "news" on a site full of FOSS fans.
Again, you're free to uncheck "Caldera" whenever you want. No more SCO. Enjoy.
In conclusion... speak for yourself.
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
"Yet once again the intelligent Europeans do away with nonsense that we should have done a long time ago :)"
The Germans tried to do this during the 1930s and 1940s, but those blasted Yanks would not let them.
Where were you during the OJ Simpson trial?
That was not "trial by media". Only the government could have put him in jail or acquitted him (or levied financial damages, which is what happened in the civil case). Only the government can do this. However, everyone else (in an out of the media) can discuss whether or not a person is actually guilty.
Sounds like a cool twisted ploy to make them lose their two remaining german customers.
- cnb
@ Sysiphus:
;-)
That all-caps line isn't so nice a thing to post (pre-1945 national anthem, forbidden to sing in Germany). The intend is warmly received, the wording is not.
That being said, I'll try myself at a word-by-word translation. (Native German speaker, me...)
"Die SCO Group GmbH wird danach im geschaftlichen Verkehr, also gegenuber Kunden und Anwendern, kunftig nicht mehr behaupten, dass Linux-Betriebssysteme unrechtmaBig erworbenes geistiges Eigentum von SCO Unix beinhalten."
"The SCO Group GmbH will therefore refrain, in future business communications, meaning in communication with customers and users, from claiming that Linux operating systems contain unlawfully purchased intelectual property of SCO Unix."
"Der Vergleich verbietet es SCO ferner zu behaupten, dass Endanwender, wenn sie Linux einsetzen, fur die damit verbundenen Schutzverletzungen der SCO Intellectual Properties haftbar gemacht werden konnen."
"The settlement further forbids SCO to claim that end users, in employing Linux, could be held liable for the implied violations of SCO intelectual property."
"Auch die Behauptung, Linux sei ein nicht autorisiertes Derivat von Unix, ist nicht mehr statthaft."
"Also the claim, Linux were a non-authorized derivative of Unix, is no longer allowed."
"Last, but not least, darf die SCO Group GmbH nicht mehr behaupten, Kaufer von Linux-Betriebssystemen hatten eine Strafverfolgung zu befurchten, es sei denn, es handelte sich bei den gekauften Betriebssystemen um SCO Linux oder Caldera Linux. . . . "
"Last but not least (translator's note: I don't believe this is the official wording), the SCO Group GmbH must no longer claim that purchasers of Linux operating systems must fear lawsuits if the purchased operating systems are not SCO Linux or Caldera Linux..."
"Nach diesem wird SCO auch nicht mehr offentlich behaupten, Beweise fur die Urheberrechtsverletzung wurden demnachst vorgelegt."
"After this, SCO will no longer claim in public that proof for the copyright infringement will be presented shortly."
"Ausnahme: Sollten diese Beweise innerhalb eines Monats nach diesem Vergleich vorgelegt werden, kann die SCO Group GmbH solch eine Behauptung weiter veroffentlichen."
"Exception: Should these proofs be presented within one month after this settlement, the SCO Group GmbH may continue to publish such a claim."
Oh, the irony ...
You are celebrating this event with a song mostly forbidden in Germany.
If I am wrong, someone please help clarify.
Of course, when I type "uncheck Caldera", I really mean "check Caldera". Just like when SCO says "the evidence is coming Real Soon Now," they mean "Get ready for our next exciting press release, and Goddess forbid the tech nerds ever see our so-called evidence!"
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
Link
/PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- The SCO Group, Inc. ("SCO") (Nasdaq: SCOX - News), the owner of the UNIX(R) operating system and a leading provider of UNIX-based solutions, today announced an intellectual property licensing agreement with EV1Servers.Net, a dedicated hosting division of Houston-based Everyones Internet (EV1.Net). Under the terms of the agreement, SCO will provide EV1Servers.Net with a site license that allows the use of SCO IP in binary form on all Linux servers managed by EV1Servers.Net in each of its hosting facilities."
Quote: "LINDON, Utah, March 1
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
More like that it's slightly insensitive for a german to sing it since it's the last part of their former anthem and glorifies germany for being superior to everything.
There was a similar case Tarent vs. SCO Germany.
Unfortunately we cannot report an offence to the police, so that the intstitutions can start a criminal investigation (fraud). The reason is that SCO does not sell their licenses in Germany.
But in other European countries where
SCO is on the market with its licenses, a report to the police may be helpful.
Calling for a public prosecutor is no risk for us and free of charge.
Meiner Ansicht nach ist SCO ein Fall fur den Staatsanwalt, man sollte
Strafanzeigen wegen Betruges stellen. Leider konnen wir das in Deutschland
nicht. Der Vorteil einer Strafanzeige liegt darin, dass ein Staatsanwalt die
Untersuchung ubernimmt und wir nichts zahlen mussen. Im Europaischen Ausland
sollten wir gemeinsam mit befreundeten Organisationen entsprechende
Strafanzeigen wegen Betruges stellen.
So telling SCO they have to shup up now instead of six months ago doesn't appear to be doing much that hasn't already happened.
The real question is why Darl has felt it necessary to deprive us of his rather unique insights into intellectual property ownership.
person: judge storm! judge storm! the people of slashdot are badly misinterpretting item 4 to mean that SCO may only sue their own customers!
.
JS: mmm . .
person: judge storm? shouldn't we correct them?
JS: no . . no, i'm going to allow this one.
person: but-
JS: SILENCE! my position is unassailable. now bring me a goblet of cheese and all 25 episodes of "Berserk". i need to do some thinking on more important matters . . . such as how that CAN'T be the LAST episode, can it?!?!? Griffith, you BASTARD!!!
** Chigusaaa!!! You're the coolest girl in the WORLD!!! **
get your facts straight dude...
here.. enlightment..
Actually, it's the first part of a song called the "Lied der Deutschen". That part is now verboten. The last part of that same song (the one that goes "Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit") is the current German national anthem.
Other times it means that a defendant who is found not guilty by the court has to deal with a public that thinks otherwise.
That is fine, as too often there is a defendant who is guilty in reality even if the court says they aren't. The difference is often due to some silly technicality, often involving evidence-exclusion rules so the jury does not know the facts of the case.
For someone to sue them in US too
Finally SCO has sold one of their licenses to a commercial Linux user. Here is the press release
The buyer is Everyones servers, a web hoster. I wonder why This guy is doing this?
.ACMD setaloiv siht gnidaeR
Enforcement of consumer law under the Enterprise Act
... from the follow-up lawsuit include.
D*ryl McBr*de
Ly*ng Scumf*cks
S*mpr*ni
The court order (in German)
That is not the recent settlement, but an old interim order from last year, as can be seen from the date (28. Mai 2003 = May 28, 2003). It contains only parts of the new agreement (namely No. 1 and 2).
Laudamus veteres sed nostris utimur annis.
That all-caps line isn't so nice a thing to post (pre-1945 national anthem, forbidden to sing in Germany). The intend is warmly received, the wording is not. ;-)
Just for the record: While I agree that people shouldn't sing/shout/whatever that line, it's technically not forbidden. It even used be part of the anthem.
The base text of the anthem is "Das Lied der Deutschen" by Hoffmann von Fallersleben which is from the 19th century. Until 1990, all the verses made up the anthem, it was just that only the 3rd verse was sung. They changed that after the re-unification, now the anthem is officially only the 3rd verse. However you're still allowed to print, read or sing all the verses. (Different from some Nazi-era songs or slogans which could really get you into legal trouble.)
However, I agree: Just because it isn't forbidden doesn't mean you should do it, because it most certainly wouldn't make you look good.
Baumi
The whole fact that SCO was willing to settle so easily, and give up their rights to bitching, proves that they know they don't have a leg to stand on.
-------
"In times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
-- George Orwell
DEUTSCHLAND DEUTSCHLAND Ueber Alles!
Using that phrase is more than a little insensitive. In fact, using it in Germany can get you in about as much trouble as SCO can after this.
As far as I know that is still part of the official anthem. It is common misconception that it means that Germany's superior to everybody, it actually means that German national unity should come before the petty local and personal interests (it was composed back in other times). Alles means everything, everybody is alle.
This of course did not stop the guy with the moustache to shift the meaning in the direction he wanted, which left the song with a certain evil aura.
Some info at this link
Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
Der Antragsgegnerin wird [...] verboten, im geschaeftlichen Verkehr die Behauptung zu verbreiten, dass LINUX-Betriebssysteme unrechtmaessig erworbenes Eigentum von SCO UNIX beinhalten und/oder dass Endanwender, die LINUX einsetzen, fuer die damit verbundenen Schutzrechtsverletzungen der SCO Intellectual Properties haftbar gemacht werden koennen.
I try to translate, but beware my english (maybe someone can do a better job on this):
[SCO Group GmbH] must not spread the assertion that linux operating systems contain unlawfully obtained property of SCO UNIX and/or that end users could get hold responsible for implicated intellectual property infringement implicated by using linux.
Thanks to LEO
that is NOT protected as free speech, and rightfully should not be. It's basically the same thing that SCO is doing - making derogatory and harmful remarks about an innocent party (the open source & Linux communities) without any proof. When given an opportunity to prove their statements, they give the response of "Hey, what's that over there?" to distract everyone.
"Die SCO Group"
When I started to read the German news report, I didn't go into German mode, and was throughly entertained to read that a news organization was saying to SCO "Die." But it was just saying "The SCO..." Oh well.
The views expressed are mine own and do not express the views of my employer.
You're null unt void.
Signed,
Germany
It is not verboten, it's just not sung anymore in public. And our national anthem is usually just the melody of the "Lied der Deutschen" without any of the text.
Free Manning, jail Obama.
I didn't know weasels could be muzzled!
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
"Ze Germans!"
If any concerned people wished to contact SCO's European head office, to press them to abide by the terms of the German court throughout their European market, they can do so at the following address:
EUROPEAN HEADQUARTERS
The Santa Cruz Operation, Ltd.
Croxley Business Park, Hatters Lane
Watford WD1 8YN, United Kingdom
TEL: +44(0) 1923-816344
FAX: +44(0) 1923-813808
E-MAIL: info@sco.com
It would probably do no good but, well, you never know.
I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
What Univention used against SCO is what the Germans call "Beweislast" (burden of proof). According to German law, the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff. This means SCO cannot, according to German law, make public statements threatening anyone about anything especially if this would undermine the accused (Linux in this case), before the accusations or claims have been proved to be true in a court of law. This is how things should be since it stops alot of unecesarry lawsuits
Every problem has a better solution when you start thinking it differently than the normal way.[Steve Wozniak]
It's amazing that any judge in any country came up with a simple and common sense solution. Maybe some US courts can pay attention, rulings don't have to be 20 pages of convoluted crap thats unreadable to 90% of humanity.
Is there a way to send this to the judge in Utah? It might make this a short case.
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
For those who may not recognize who EV1 is, they used to be Rackshack and got (still have) quite a reputation for dirt-cheap hosting laced with spammers.
They used to use primarily Red Hat based systems but have begun pushing MicroSoft systems recently. They still have a ton of Linux systems, but they also seem to want to court MS. I suspect the tin-hat crowd might see some type of causal link between that and the fact that EV1 is now a SCO licensee.
The world is the internet's audience, they can still say what they want and it will come back to people in Germany.
The CRC of your DNA is the same as that of your twin brother.
The article doesn't mention what they can't say. Are you allowed to say what they can't say?
[sig]darkfus[/sig]
Any article that starts with...
Die SCO Group...
has got to be good!
Beautifully put, sir.
There is no such place as Pearl Harbour. Take out the extraneous and silly U and you get Pearl Harbor, which DOES exist.
It's not forbidden! But most parts are "unofficial".
Rule 1) SCO Group GmbH (German branch of SCO) has agreed not to allege any more that Linux contains SCO's unlawfully acquired intellectual property.
Rule 2) The settlement also forbids SCO from claiming that if end users are running Linux they might be liable for breaches of SCO's intellectual property.
Rule 3) Also they cannot say that Linux is an unauthorized derivative of Unix.
Rule 4) Finally SCO Group GmbH is prohibited to threaten to sue Linux users unless they bought SCO Linux or Caldera Linux.
Fact 1: SCO Group GmbH get's fined EUR 10,000 if they break Rules 1 through 4.
Fact 2: Darl mcwhatever is CEO of SCO.
Theorem 1: SCO Group GmbH is a branch of SCO group and falls directly under SCO group.
extrapolation 1: If Theorem 1 holds then Darl mcwhatever is part of SCO Group GmbH.
Conclusion: If extrapolation 1 holds then SCO Group GmbH gets fined EUR 10.000 everytime Darl mcwhatever says or does anything covered by rules 1 through 4.
Does this mean that every SCO press release now costs them an additional EUR 10.000?
What about the sco.com website? is that a repeat offense every time someone presses refresh?
If you say something that could hurt somebody else, you have to be able to prove it, or stop saying it.
Sucks replying to my own post, but just to clear things up: In Germany, cooperations do not have the same rights as persons, that is, freedom of speech applies much less liberally, especially when infringing on another business.
The national anthem used to be the entire "Lied der Deutschen" until 1990, while only the last (third) verse was sung. In the verge of the unification, the national anthem was changed to be only the third verse.
This sounds very much like this old /. story:
SCO Fined in Munich For Linux Claims.
I'll be off watching my non-delayed live TV-show :)
If there is any possibility of injunction against SCO here in the US, it ought to be pursued. "Burden of proof" is a legal issue that lies with the Plaintiff in the US as well, but given IANAL, I don't know whether you can stop SCO from, for example, creating business harm via sabre-rattling that amounts to libel until they prove anything.
Another thought experiment I've been waiting for in reality. I'd actually do this if i was the SCO Germany CEO - or try to at least.
:-) And, on top of that, probably even be proven right in court.
Here it goes:
By german law the CEO of a GmbH (a ldt. company) has to do everything to prevent serious damage to the companies assets, it property and health in general. That inculdes insubordinating orders given by the board of holders!. Especially if they would require actions in conflict with the law.
If I were SCO Germany I would've pulled this PR stunt months ago: Publically stating that SCO germany does not comply whatsoever with the statements of SCO America concerning SCO IP in Linux, which up to date aren't prooven, and to prevent further damage by being recognized as a subsidary of SCO US SCO Germany has decided to change it's name to BHO (Bad Homburg Operation).
That would be really cool.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
SCO, mach einen Mucks und Du bist Geschichte!
SCO, make one sound and you're history!
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
My translation: "The SCO Group GmbH will therefore no longer claim in business communications, that is toward customers and users, that
Anyone out there with some knowledge of German law who can explain that qualification: "in business communciations"? I'm wondering if SCO has a kind of loophole here. To be sure, it's fairly clear that they can't send threatening letters to companies or end users, and that's a Very Good Thing. But it sounds as if they might still be able to make statements in the press, for example, that are otherwise verboten according to this order.
Of course, one wonders why they would do that, but then why do they say any of the things they say? Go figure SCO. If they think there's some good reason to keep trying to intimidate people, does the order's restriction to "geschaftlichen Verkehr" give them a way to keep doing it?
Always keep a sapphire in your mind
Can I say you mother is a #@!&$# ?? Is that free speach, well I guess you can't stop kids in the playground. That's how SCO's behaving, like kids competing in the (changeable) social order.
Thus most adults with "ethics", don't go around saying false or misleading statements because they get an untrustworthy reputation, and in the end they weaken their own position.
Now lets mix the schoolyard with lots of $$$ and political power, and a sprinkle of media manipulation and you've got a receipe for disaster. You must have rules and regulations over free speech, there's no way around it.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
> But it sounds as if they might still be
> able to make statements in the press, for
> example, that are otherwise verboten
> according to this order.
When they do so a judge has to decide if they did
so in order to tell customers and users or not. (Intentions matter!). The German equivalent of free speech, that is "Meinungsfreiheit" (freedom of opinion) holds in Germany. That is they can still say their opinions. But yelling at the press or making statements intended to make people buy licences is not protected.
Aside from some ...problems... 60 some-odd years ago, the Germans have to be the most rational group I've ever seen. As a nation, they have a much better bullshit detector than we in the US have- Check out how they handled the scientologists as well.
You are an smoker...
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Compare those "left-wing fascists" to the totalitarian state that GWB is trying to implement.
At least the Greens are only trying to get power. GWB already has it! **shudder**
I don`t like to spoil your fun, but the thing about SCO sueing its own customers is a misinterpretation.
:-)
SCO has repeatetly announced that it will sue any Linux user who uses any other distro but SCO Linux or Caldera Linux.
They didnt say ALL Linux users, so in best court-talk this translates to:
4) Finally SCO Group GmbH is prohibited to threaten to "sue Linux users unless they bought SCO Linux or Caldera Linux".
I hope the quotation marks will make things clearer, although in german like in english you can really read it both ways.
Another point is that they can still sue users (they cant, but for other reasons), but they must not go around making hollow threats.
Some also mentioned how cool it is from the german goverment/courts to muzzle SCO.
Its neither the goverment nor the court who took action, they cant do that on their own: it was a lawsuit from a "competitor" who claimed that SCO was doing damage to its business by telling lies (people not buying Linux/support because of fearing lawsuits).
For an example: if Reebok starts to pronounce that "wearing Nike shoes shrinks your testicles", Nike can go to court and challenge Reebok to either proof it or stop talking bullshit. In this case Reebok would have come up with the proof (or at least serious reasons for this belief) or loose the lawsuit and hence will either be forbidden to make that claim again (maybe they might be able say things like "In our opinion, wearing Nike shoes shrinks your testicles").
Actually im pretty sure that SCO just didnt want their completly unimportant german branch to end their "we-got-proof-we-just-wont-show-it"-game before they get their chance on the big money in the US-courts.
A last one:
SCO and SCO Germany are
a) not the same company (in a juristical sense) and the contents of the english SCO website are
b) "not aimed at germans" (a website written in german might be),
so SCO Germany wont pay for anything on the SCO website.
Im sorry, but i think the case here in germany wont affect the US-courts and is therefore quite unimportant. But it still gives a warm feeling
ev1servers doesn't own or otherwise partner with Rackspace, do they? I've got a couple of servers at Rackspace and would hate to know that some of my money was going to SCO.
You are being unfair to Yahoo.
At the very top of the "article". I.e. Above the Headline it says
"Press Release Source: The SCO Group, Inc".
Yahoo.com makes it a point to publish unedited, any press release sent to it by "qualified entities". Companies listed on the US Stock exchange automatically qualify.
Latter on they may or may publish an article on the subject that dose nothing more than rephrase the press release. At that point you can fairly criticize them. Not now and not on this.
PS: Real Journalists (I.e. Groklaw) Will in all likelihood dig into this story to find out where the relationships run, who owns who and perhaps even what was paid and in what direction the payments went. Hell they might even seek to find out what the makeup of this companies infrastructure is.
--= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
Extortion is not covered by the free speech clause of the US constitution nor any other founding document anywhere I am aware of. I mean, really, "But your honor, we had a perfect right to tell Mr. Chung we would break his legs if he didn't pay us money to protect his take-out business"? You're not serious guys?
"Is this Winkhorst a nova criminal?" "No just a technical sergeant wanted for interrogation."
I assume from your naive posting that you believe a corporate entity's "free speech" rights have been trampled?
SCO could have stood by their statements, and fought it, but they couldn't, wouldn't and didn't.
They knew damn well they couldn't support and justify their public statements, and quite sensibly, folded.
You got a problem with that?
T&K.
Political language
Case I recall, which was settled out of court, so it didn't go anywhere potentially biased site
This appears to be the only applying case law I could find: Consolidated Edison
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Invincibility is defense. Vincibility is attack. Defend and one has a surplus. Attack and one is insufficient.
Read the story of Cygnus from the Illiad. He was similar to Achilles, but without the weak spot. So they dug a pit, forced him into it, and then filled it with stones too heavy for him to lift.
Perfect defense suffices??
Or consider the aptly named MAD strategic principle. Whoever attacks first can assuredly kill the opposition totally. But this doesn't keep a retaliation from killing them. Yipe!
Perfect attack suffices??
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
So, if you commit treason by selling centrifuge technology to Iraq, like Schaab, you get 5 years suspended sentence and 6,000 fine, but if you claim people owe you money without a court order to back it up you pay 12,000. They need to get their priorities straight in Germany.
so if i install this on a spare 500Mb HD and store it away im safe? :P
Money has sway over people and their opinions.
Bush is president, but didn't get a majority.
Bush wants a pet judge and pushes him through even thouth congress [the people] didn't.
It is OK to fabricate WMD stories and go invade/bully the world.
It is all OK though since we're free and democratic.
Mmmmmmmm... pie... *slobber*
What this settlement does not say: SCO agrees not to allege A, B, C, D...
What it does say: SCO agrees not to allege A, B.... unless they have evidence for it. And they agree not to announce having evidence unless they hand over such evidence to Univention within one month after the announcement.
The legal basis for Univention's claims against SCO Germany is Article 1 of the Act against Unfair Competition (UWG). In patent attorney Ralph Beyer's translation:
Relevant caselaw is a decision of the Hamburg Higher Regional Court (OLG) of August 31, 2000 (3 U 272/92, WRP 2001, 956-964) and a decision of the Federal Court of Justice of July 7, 1954 (Johann Maria Farina, BGHZ 14, 282). Under that caselaw it is an "act contrary to honest practices" to assert intellectual property rights in public without actually having them.
Now, what exactly would happen if SCO Germany tomorrow started to make all the assertions mentioned in the settlement again in public?
In that case, Univention could sue them under the terms of the settlement for 10.000 Euro.
However, they could sue them under the above Article of the Act against Unfair Competition and caselaw anyway. All the settlement gives Univention on top of that is an easy way to put a number on their damage claims.
That number however is rather low, compared to what is at stake here. I doubt that this will have much of a deterrent effect on SCO Germany. They can always say that they have evidence now, even under the terms of the settlement.
And this settlement is only between SCO Germany and Univention. Every other Linux company in Germany is free to start their own lawsuit based on unfair competition law.
Lenz Blog
Wasted Bandwidth Productions Presents
"Mod This Parent Up"
Starring Chess the cat
When you think "Chess the cat" think "Content-Free."
If Cygnus was invincible then he would eventually be able to tunnel out of the pit they dug since rock is not invincible.
The Art of War goes into many guiding principles for conducting a war (and many of these have application in normal life too) and neither attack or defence is suffient on it's own.
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
This is not about restricting free speech.
SCO came out and said that all Linux users are infringing their copyrights.
Univention then went to court and told them, that SCO is harming their business with false claims and they should not be allowed to do that. In Germany such claims violate competition laws, if they are false.
There was a hearing and the court granted an preliminary injunction that barred SCO from telling their story, because SCO did not show any proof to their claims. At the hearing they only needed to show just the possibility to get that injuction dismissed, but they didn't.
The premliminary injuction is only there, to stop any harm that could be done until this is resolved by a real court.
So now there should be a real court trial, where the issue would be resolved.
But SCO didn't want this to go to court, so they negotiated with Univention and got an Out-of-court settlement.
There are two important things to learn from this story:
1. In Germany a business is not allowed to make false statements about their competition until they can proof it. There are special laws to promote fair competition in the marketplace and making false claims to harm a competitors business vialates them.
2. FAR MORE IMPORTANT
To avoid having to proof their claims in court they signed a settlement which basically looks like the worst court decision they could have gotten.
Please note that usually these settlements remain confidential. That Univention is allowed to show this basically demonstrates, that SCO kneeled down and kissed Univentions butt to avoid going to court.
Univention got the settlement exactly how the wanted it.
What does this say about SCOs claims?
Regards
Klaus
Is it that hard to read the german penal code once in a lifetime?