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.
That US law couldn't do such things?
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.
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
I'm not a big supporter of S.U.S.E linux, but i'm sure this settlement made them relax a bit.
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...
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.
Jeezus! What a useless karma whore. Groklaw is not slashdotted; their hosting is reletively studly these days.
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.
"Trial by media" is what results when there is so much media coverage of an event, it starts to affect the event itself. Sometimes it means that there's so much national media coverage of an event, it's impossible to find a jury that hasn't already started to form an opinion. Other times it means that a defendant who is found not guilty by the court has to deal with a public that thinks otherwise.
I honestly question why judges don't want cameras in their courtrooms. Every word that is said in that courtroom is still going to be talked about too much by the media anyway, so why deny the public the chance to see primary source material instead of leaving the public watching commentators alone?
As a poster at groklaw already pointed out, the german text is ambigous here:
" [...] as it could have the meaning that SCO is after all allowed to threaten their own customers with the prospect of criminal prosecution or they are not allowed to say that all Linux users but those who bought from Caldera or SCO could have to face criminal prosecution."
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.
But why are there so many lawyers in the US? Does it have something to do with culture? Hardly.
The lawyers are here because the law is overly complex, ambiguous, and exploitable. In other words, the root of the problem is government. As long as the law is exploitable, there will be a demand to exploit the law. The lawyers are only here to supply the demand.
Everyone wants a piece of the pie, and the US government's solution is to keep producing more and more pie (to continuously expand the scope of government). This is a classic example of government creating problems of which the "solution" requires (guess what) more government. The real solution, of course, is to limit the size of the pie.
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
SCO can't sue any Linux users except their own customers.
Both two customers?
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.
The world is the internet's audience, they can still say what they want and it will come back to people in Germany.
The great Free Speech debate. There is the clasic saying that, "free speech does not mean that you can yell fire in a crowded theater". That could apply here. Then you have the debate does free speech cover commercial speech? If so then why limits on ads for cigs?
I really think that often fraud is hidden under the terms of free speech. The world if when people make a statment of what they claim is fact where forced to take some responsibility for that statment. If SCO came out and said that "We feel that Linux infringes on our copyright and are going to look into it." I would have not problem. But when they make totaly false statments like, "Millions of lines of our code in in Linux". Then they have gone to far.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Offtopic, I know, but I feel obligated to correct/clarify inaccurate historical references. Call it a character flaw if you want.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
No it does not.
Their customers - it is contract law
Other people - it is general antitrust, slander and copyright law.
That is the distinction and there is nothing funny in it.
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
It's not forbidden! But most parts are "unofficial".
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.
I disagree in part. I think it is partly a cultural thing - whenever something goes wrong, someone must be to blame, and they should be sued. I'm disturbed by the way that culture has been spreading to the UK over the past few years.
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 ?
Well, there is a difference between free speech of individuals and corporate PR/financial market information(here:fraud). When you lie in the public and spread rumors and false evidence you cannot say: Well, that's my personal opinion.
SCO is infringing on certain business standards of communication policy. In germany this is seen as an anti-competitive offence and I believe the rule is good as we see it works while in the US further rumor and misinformation is spread and reported by the press.