Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Germany Muzzles SCO

Posted by Hemos on 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"

19 of 349 comments (clear)

  1. Good to see... by Da+Fokka · · 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 SMOC · · 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.
    2. Re:Good to see... by Anonymous Coward · · 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

    3. Re:Good to see... by jkrise · · 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....
    4. Re:Good to see... by socrates32 · · 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.
    5. Re:Good to see... by LostCluster · · 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.

    6. Re:Good to see... by buzzdecafe · · 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.

    7. Re:Good to see... by kramer2718 · · 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
    8. Re:Good to see... by DrHyde · · 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.

    9. Re:Good to see... by kmonsen · · 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.

    10. Re:Good to see... by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  2. How does it come? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That US law couldn't do such things?

    1. Re:How does it come? by Moraelin · · 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.
  3. Gagged..... by cuteface · · 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.
  4. S.U.S.E by moberry · · 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.

  5. The customer is always right? by kyrre · · 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...

  6. Re:Another idea by Platinum+Dragon · · 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.
  7. This proves it by miketang16 · · 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
  8. Common sense in Germany by BCW2 · · 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.