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"
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:
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...
That's a mistranslation. SCO has been saying that they reserve the right to sue any Linux user, except those who bought a SCO or Caldera distribution. The German court says that SCO must quit saying that.
Apparently, the translation turned from saying the above to, SCO may not threaten to sue any linux user, except those who bought a SCO or Caldera distribution... gotta distribute the logical not throughout the statement properly!!!
@ 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."
it seems to me that if the US courts did something like this to a small business man (rather than to Satan), the slashdot crowd would be screaming about Ashcroft and free speech rights.
I hate to be an ass but it's SuSE or Suse, not S.U.S.E., it's not an acronym, it stands for nothing.
Gesellschaft fur Software-und Systementwicklung MBH.
Company for software and system development.
But still. it's spelled SUSE.
Free speech rights don't include the right to libel or slander. Unless SCO can prove otherwise, they are certainly guilty of slander (Oral communication of false statements injurious to a person's reputation) against, at the very least, Linus for claiming he is the ringleader of an international group of IP pirates and copyright infringers.
Libel (A false publication, as in writing, print, signs, or pictures, that damages a person's reputation; the act of presenting such material to the public) requires publication. I'm not sure what, if anything, SCO itself has published. Most publications have been interviews with SCOs officers, published by various members of the media.
IMO, BTW IANAL TLA, SCO is also guilty of barratry (The offense of persistently instigating lawsuits, typically groundless ones) as they have filed numerous suits against various groups without providing so much as a shred of tangible evidence (ie, evidence that wasn't refuted within 24 hours).
In short, take those free speech arguments and shove 'em where the sun don't shine. Even free speech has its limitations...
It is a bit more subtle; going back to the german version it says that as "Univention" essentially represent all, -except- for those with whom SCO has a direct relationship, the ruling affects all but those. So SCO can do with its -own- customer what it wants; it just should not mess with "Univentions" their customers.
Note that it is not just sue - but "Strafverfolgung"; i.e. a criminal offence reported to the "attorney general" which the "people' bring on, rather than a civil law case.
Dw
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
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]
Are you really sure? I have read the german text, and I think the translation is quite correct. (Having german as a mother tongue helps here ;)
The german law implies you may not sue anyone who does not have business with you or interferes with you in some way. Therefore, if SCO tells it will be suing people they have no business with, they are obviously wrong.
Paragraph 263 of the german "Strafgesetzbuch" (criminal code) seems to apply in this case (fraud, making false claims to extract property).
Oh, and the obligatory IANAL.
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]