Germany Muzzles SCO

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Posted by Hemos on Monday March 1, 2004 @01:48AM from the one-step-closer dept.

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"

33 of 349 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Good to see... by Da+Fokka · 2004-03-01 01:49 · Score: 5, Insightful

I'm glad the european judicial systems are not as prone to SCO's legal guerilla tactics as the US system is.
1. Re:Good to see... by BillFarber · 2004-03-01 01:55 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I don't mean this as a troll, but 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.
2. Re:Good to see... by SMOC · 2004-03-01 02:00 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  There's no such thing as "the slashdot crowd". Opinions differ. That doesn't mean slashdot contradicts itself.
  
  --
  All errors in this comment are mine. Corrections are considered a derivative work, and punishable under copyright law.
3. Re:Good to see... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-01 02:07 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  "Are you mad or just insane"(*)
  
  They can't say it unless they prove it. You can't destroy anyones reputation just because. First you gotta prove it...
  
  (*) King Diamond
4. Re:Good to see... by jkrise · 2004-03-01 02:11 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  There ought to be an exception for 'obvious falsehoods'... else this free speech thing seems to be a misused and abused tool by big-boy corporates to screw the economy and all other small-time-geeky-nerdy-innovative-guy next door.
  
  Can the open source developers affected by SCO's statements lay their hands on millions of $s from the Bank of Canada or Deutsche Bank to bolster their case? Free speech isn't free if it costs a fortune in court....
  
  -
  
  --
  If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
5. Re:Good to see... by Baumi · 2004-03-01 02:15 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I don't know about that - it's not about denying free speech, it's about disallowing groundless claims. If you were an innocent citizen and I were someone with enough media clout to send out the message that you're a murderer over all available news outlets, you'd probably try to get a court order to stop me from doing that, as well. And rightly so.
  
  Free speech is fine when we're talking about opinions and facts - it shouldn't protect lying and baseless claims.
  
  Baumi
6. Re:Good to see... by socrates32 · 2004-03-01 02:16 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Ummm... That's not quite the point.
  They have been barred (as a result of an out-of-court SETTLEMENT) from making unsubstantiated claims that are intended to harm their competitor's business.
  Where is the First Amendment violation?
  newSCO had an opportunity to back up their claims in court, but instead AGREED to back down, so they could keep up the rhetoric back home.
  
  --
  
  -- "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur."
  - Whatever is said in Latin sounds profound.
7. Re:Good to see... by LostCluster · 2004-03-01 02:17 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Free speech is usually best when what's being said is true. In SCO's case, they're getting into the bad habbit of of annoucing a future action of theirs, and then not following through on it.
  
  Say what you want about the RIAA, but at least when they threaten to sue somebody, they follow through on it. I don't see it as that bad a thing to require that when SCO announces they're going to file a lawsuit, they should at least have to do it. Afterall, a victory against just one defendant would legitimize SCO's main claim that they're owed money by everyone who loses Linux. However, if they lose, most of their FUD will be declared something that doesn't stand up in court.
8. Re:Good to see... by buzzdecafe · 2004-03-01 02:17 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Apparently you didn't notice: This was a *settlement,* i.e., SCO agreed to the terms. If they wanted to continue speaking to their black little heart's content, simply reject the terms of the settlement and see how you do in court. For some reason, SCO decided shutting up was preferable to putting up. So don't give me this "free speech" crap. One can make the inference that if SCO had *anything* worth saying, they would not have agreed to the settlement.
9. Re:Good to see... by kramer2718 · 2004-03-01 02:19 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  The first amendment does not protect against fraud or extortion. What SCO is doing amounts to that. They are lying about their IP ... furthermore they are attempting extortion by their constant threats to sue various people. They furthermore are slandering various entities involved with Linux, AIX, etc.
  
  U.S. courts muzzle people as well ... frequently when the Enquirer or some other rag prints some inaccurate garbage about someone, they are forced to stop and often pay a settlment. What SCO is saying is inaccurate, and they're being muzzled is totally reasonable.
  
  --
  http://yetanotherpoliticalrant.blogspot.com
10. Re:Good to see... by BlackHawk-666 · 2004-03-01 02:33 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  i feel pretty certain that many Slashdotters are in favour of protection against false advertising and slanderous speech. The current SCO line on Linux is definitely in one of these two camps.
  
  --
  All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
11. Re:Good to see... by Abm0raz · 2004-03-01 02:43 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Obvious falshoods like:
  - The Earth is round
  - The Earth revolves around the sun
  - Evolution exists
  - Free (as in beer)
  - There is no proof that Cigarette smoke is linked to higher cancer rates.
  
  A lot of things are taken as "obviously" false until they are proven true.
  
  -Ab
  
  --
  Nothing fails quite like prayer.
12. Re:Good to see... by DrHyde · 2004-03-01 02:53 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  This idea that a corporation should have rights - such as free speech - as if it were a person strikes me as being quite spectacularly daft. A corporation is *not* a person, but an artificial construct the existence of which is merely permitted by laws. Also it is incapable of assuming the responsibilities of a person, is not subject to the same penalties when it misbehaves as a person, and therefore should not enjoy the same rights as a person.
  
  Regulating what a company can say is just fine. If the shareholders don't like it, they are still perfectly capable of speaking in their capacity as individual citizens.
13. Re:Good to see... by cosmo7 · 2004-03-01 03:11 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Determining arguments as atomically true or false is a trap often used by lawyers, creationists, and other unpleasant people.
  
  For instance, arguing that cigarette smoke is linked to higher cancer rates has been proved is specious because the evidence is circumstantial. A good arguer would be able to make the case that the proof is faulty and therefore cigarette smoke is not linked to higher cancer rates.
14. Re:Good to see... by kmonsen · 2004-03-01 03:53 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I think a reality pill is in order. Yes you live in a country that has been touched by fascism. One easy example is the McCarthy (?) period where any socialist ideas where in effect banned.
  What many americans don't realise is that there can never be total freedom. In a total free society you would be free to do what you want, and I would be protected from your actions. This is not possible if we want different things. There will always be a tradeoff between your freedom and my protection. We europeans just have a (slightly) different tradeoff.
  You and me refere to fictional characters here of course.
15. Re:Good to see... by blinder · 2004-03-01 03:53 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Free speech is fine when we're talking about opinions and facts - it shouldn't protect lying and baseless claims.
  
  wow, scary.
  
  free speech means I can make all the baseless claims and lie all I want. What I can't do is yell "fire" in a crowded movie theater (the classic example).
  
  If I break the law (through fraud) -- then fine, arrest me, and I'll go through due process, but to simply restrict speech simply because it may be baseless or a lie is ridiculous and scary.
  
  Right now, I'm sitting on the beach typing this and that later today I'm going to take a long drive in my Ferrari.
  
  See, that was a lie! I'm sitting in my cubicle right now! But according to your definition of free speech, I just committed a crime by lying where I am and what I'm doing.
  
  --
  sad robot making broken music
16. Re:Good to see... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-01 04:20 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  >"free speech" is very much an American idea
  
  This isn't correct, but typical of contemporary US nationalist meme-thinking. The conceptions of free-speech are somewhat different in Europe and the US but if you think "it is very much an American idea " you are in need of an education.
  
  - The idea of free speech originated first in Europe (maybe elsewhere also). Scores of euro philosophers/political thinkers have argued for free speech long before the US existed, including ancient greeks.
  - The european provisions you mention are insignificant. There are far more important factors to free speech, such as good public service media and the conditions of political campaigns.
  - The worlds oldest freedom of the press-laws are European (the first one was made law in Sweden, which is in Europe last I checked).
  
  In practice, socio-political debate in west-european countries span a much wider range of ideas than that of the US, and is far more critical of government (power in general). That is the main point of free speech.
17. Re:Good to see... by Experiment+626 · 2004-03-01 05:14 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  And what is "free speech" if your actors cannot give their personal opinions about current events when accepting awards?
  
  The kinds of comments you refer to are the entertainment industry equivalent of flamebait or offtopic digressions (like this one, I'm afraid). Such comments add nothing of value to the debate over current events - does skill at acting really confer any special sagacity about foreign policy? Is the opinion being expressed going to be in any way better informed than a soundbite on the issue from the janitor who sweeps the floors after the awards ceremony is over would be?
  
  Also, such offtopic and inappropriate comments from actors open up a can of worms. Should they be able to make controversial comments that generate lots of backlash against the studios they work for? What if the speech is so controversial it would generally be viewed as insensetive, racist, or hate speech? If some spouting of political comments is good and other types would be bad, what political correctness censoring authority determines how free speech should really be?
  
  Famous people already have a much louder voice for their personal opinion than their expertise on the matters being discussed would merit. They can give interviews, issue press releases, and often testify before congress about topic they have no particular knowledge about. Does having once played a doctor really make someone an expert on health care policy? Newspaper columnists don't go around claiming their political commentaries entitle them to a role in a film, why do entertainers think being good at acting makes their political opinions worth listening to?
18. Re:Good to see... by Hektor_Troy · 2004-03-01 05:16 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  In SOME European countries ... some ...
  
  Denmark, for instance, has the worlds ONLY state funded Nazi radio station. Why? Because the legislation that allows for publicly funded radiostations set out some guidelines that the Nazi station lives up to, namely public service (like news etc).
  
  I have absolutely no problem with that. Why? Because if I want freedom of speech, it should also cover the speech I find deeply appaling! If it doesn't, how can it be free?
  
  And our politicians? Well, they want to ban it. But they can't do it by law, as they haven't broken any laws yet. When they try to remove funding from the station by tweaking the law, they end up closing fifty other stations as well, so that doesn't work.
  
  And damnit - I wish they'd keep their fucking hands of them! Not because I like Nazis - I don't like their view of the world, but because it is so much easier keeping them in check, when they're out in the open and you can ridicule them instead.
  
  Nazis here like marching on various occasions. They're allowed to, it's quite legal. So how do you stop them? By having citizens organize a fundraiser. "We will donate ?150 to various jewish organisations [like holocaust center] for every km the nazis march." That took the air right out of their balloon ...
  
  THAT'S how you use free speech to impede dangerous speech ... not by restricting it, but by making i lose its power by exposing it to sunlight.
  
  IMHO
  
  --
  We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
How does it come? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-01 01:50 · Score: 5, Insightful

That US law couldn't do such things?
1. Re:How does it come? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-01 02:02 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  In the US the rights of an individual only hold sway over another individual if the first individual has more money at its disposal. Hence SCO, with cash in the bank and a powerful marketing voice has stronger rights than people, it's part of US law. It's not codified as such, but that's the result.
  
  In many parts of Europe, it's the opposite. A company, no matter how well respected or large will always have to bow down to the will of the people in the end. This is what's happened as a result, and Germany made the right decision to act.
2. Re:How does it come? by Moraelin · 2004-03-01 02:55 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Essentially it boils down to the fact that the US government and justice seem to have degenerated in little more than a farce. They're so busy rewarding their corporate sponsors and begging for future campaign contributions, that they seem to have forgot who they're really supposed to represent. (Hint: the people.)
  
  In Europe this hasn't happened yet.
  
  I'm not saying that European politicians are born more honest. They're not.
  
  I do say, however, that here the democratic checks still work. The press, the unions, the other parties _and_ the other countries in the EU will raise a ruckus sky-high at the slightest hint that a politician may be bought or acting against the people's interest.
  
  Maybe more important is that here, to the best of my knowledge, all countries have more than two parties. There is no lack of choice for voting someone else into office, if the current lot does a bad job.
  
  Better yet, most often parties have to form fragile alliances to be anywhere near a majority. You can't take "we're the majority" for granted and do whatever you damn please. (I.e., reward those who paid for your campaign.) Often to get your own Law X voted, you have to secure the support of one or two other parties. Which might imply altering the law so they like it too, or supporting their own Law Y, or whatnot.
  
  Chances are good enough that enough of those will do the populist thing and refuse to support stuff that would piss off their voters. Or want to have it changed so it at least looks good to their voters.
  
  Speaking of fragile alliances: having one or two members in the parliament can (and often does) make _the_ difference between being the alliance leader or having to follow. There's a real competition for Joe Average's vote. You don't want to piss off Joe Average too much.
  
  --
  A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Gagged..... by cuteface · 2004-03-01 01:51 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
S.U.S.E by moberry · 2004-03-01 01:54 · Score: 5, Insightful

I'm not a big supporter of S.U.S.E linux, but i'm sure this settlement made them relax a bit.
The customer is always right? by kyrre · 2004-03-01 01:55 · Score: 5, Insightful

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...
Re:DEUTSCHLAND! by Rico_za · 2004-03-01 02:00 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.
Re:Another idea by Platinum+Dragon · 2004-03-01 02:00 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
Re:There is no "trial by media" by LostCluster · 2004-03-01 02:06 · Score: 4, Insightful

"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?
Re:Good ol' Germans! by ratamacue · 2004-03-01 02:22 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.
This proves it by miketang16 · 2004-03-01 02:30 · Score: 5, Insightful

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
Common sense in Germany by BCW2 · 2004-03-01 02:54 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
Re:Germany has a sense of humor by LWATCDR · 2004-03-01 02:58 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.
Re:Germany has a sense of humor by arivanov · 2004-03-01 03:06 · Score: 4, Insightful

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/