Germany Muzzles SCO

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.

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.
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.
Re:Good to see... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-01 02:01 · Score: 2, Interesting

It seems to me that if the US courts did something like this to a small business man, someone on slashdot would relish pointing out that the slashdot crowd would cheer if it happened to Satan rather than a small businessman, as if that was some kind of a proof of hypocricy.
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
Re:Good to see... by Windsurfer · 2004-03-01 02:08 · Score: 4, Informative

I'm glad the european judicial systems are not as prone to SCO's legal guerilla tactics as the US system is.

Unfortunately, it's the large companies in the US that SCO want to target the most. And they have just announced that they've persuaded another bunch of suckers to sign up....
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....
Re:Good to see... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-01 02:12 · Score: 5, Informative

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.

...and another part of the Slashdot crowd, the one based in reality, would point out that commercial speech has long been restricted in ways that individuals' speech has not, and that businesses can't go around lying in order to make money (cue Microsoft jab, 3, 2, 1...).
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
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.
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.
Re:Good to see... by EricWright · 2004-03-01 02:17 · Score: 5, Informative

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...
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.
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
Re:Good to see... by Salsaman · 2004-03-01 02:22 · Score: 4, Funny

So you don't mind companies lying about their products ?
Then I have some marvellous snake oil for you, which will cure every known disease. I can let you have some very cheap.
Re:Good to see... by Gr8Apes · 2004-03-01 02:27 · Score: 3, Insightful

There's always the counter example to unbridled free speech in the form of the "falsely yelling fire in the theatre" rule.

Free speech rules come with some common sense restrictions, which are that it can be restricted in cases where it is shown to be both false and solely intended to harm others. SCO appears to meet both criteria.

--
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
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.
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.
Re:Good to see... by orthogonal · 2004-03-01 02:47 · Score: 5, Interesting

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.

Two issues here: even an ACLU liberal like me won't argue that free speech is so absolute as to preclude laws against slander or libel. And most of us would be willing to have limits on threatening speech, although this is more subject to abuse.

The second issue is that "free speech" is very much an American idea. That's not to say that freedom is unknown in Europe, but Europe is far more willing to restrict speech that would (generally) be considered protected in the U.S. Germany, especially, is far more willing to subjugate free speech to social order, as a result of seeing the particular zeal with which certain very bad ideas were formerly so lovingly embraced by German listeners.

I'm referring, of course, to Germany's Nazi past: as a result, Germany law holds social order -- the protection of ideals of democratic government -- to be more important that a right to the exhortation of Nazi "hate speech", including not only speech in favor of Fascism but also Fascism's ugly underpinnings, such as racist and anti-Semitic speech, and minimization of Fascism's consequences, such as Holocaust denial.

Other European nations are also more leery of speech that is too stark a reminder of history, as we saw with France's restriction of eBay's sale of Nazi memorabilia. Britain, too, is less concerned about free speech, but limits speech less through hate-speech laws than through far easier to get judgments against libel and slander.

One of the strongest arguments of free speech advocates in the U.S. is that the best antidote to "bad" speech is not suppression, but instead the "free marketplace of ideas": "bad" speech is supposed to generate counter-arguments against what it advocates, allowing a free people to freely weigh both sides of the question and -- presumably -- end up even more strongly against the "bad" speech. (I keep using scare quotes around "bad" not because I'm a fan of hate speech, but because this argument for free speech presumes that it is up to each listener, and not a government, to determine in his own conscience what speech is "bad".)

I'm inclined to agree with this analysis, but furthermore, I can't see what alternative to it allows a people truly to be free, and I worry that suppression of hate speech in Europe -- and Germany in particular -- is just a tacit acknowledgement that these countries don't really believe that all the demons of their past have truly been put to rest, that they fear that Fascism might again prove irresistibly seductive if allowed to be advocated freely.

But I'm an American, not a European, and I have the luxury of living in a land that has never been touched by Fascism or Communist Statism, where Democracy -- however unevenly applied to minorities or women or the poor -- was at least the ideal to which we pledged ourselves. And of course, the U.S. has not been shy about restricting free speech in its colonial possessions, as a perusal of our laws in the Philippines or Cuba makes clear.

Lest we forget, not only Germany, but Italy, Portugal -- until 1974, and Spain -- until 1977 --, were Fascist, and Eastern Europe -- including East Germany -- languished under Communist Statism just as tyrannical until the 1990s. With that perspective, it's perhaps more understandable that Europeans feel they must -- to paraphrase the U.S. doctrine in Vietnam -- restrict freedom in order to save it.

--
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
Re:Good to see... by kalja · 2004-03-01 02:48 · Score: 2

"They can't say it unless they prove it. You can't destroy anyones reputation just because. First you gotta prove it..."
Iam startled about how anyone at slashdot can be so naive. (good) Reputation is something you can destroy in notime, you just let the internet/media go out and cruicify whoever you want and if you where wrong you just say you had some kindof source of whatever you made up, you dont really have to prove anything, since their reputation is already lost, this is how modern politic works, in buisness activity and in goverments.
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.
Re:Good to see... by EinarH · 2004-03-01 02:57 · Score: 2, Interesting

Said to see the Headsurfer sink to such a level.
Probably a marketing stunt to get some free press. BTW, I doubt EV1 is a "fortune 1000 company" (whatever that is).
And check out webhostingtalk.com and EV1 forums for hordes of unhappy people.

--
Melius mori in libertate quam vivere in servitute.
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.
Re:Good to see... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-01 03:15 · Score: 3, Insightful

Where is the First Amendment violation?

Nowhere, as far as I can tell. In fact, there's not much _to_ violate in Article 1 of the German Basic Law. Article 2 is about liberty, 3 is equality before the law and 4 is freedom of religion. Free speech is article 5.
Re:Good to see... by macdaddy · 2004-03-01 03:18 · Score: 2, Informative

The US already has laws against frivolous lawsuits and frivolous threats of lawsuits. This isn't anything new. These laws are seldom enforced though. This is akin to some large Linux organization taking SCO to court to get an injunction against them (using such laws) to prevent them from dissing the Linux group's userbase. This isn't a matter of 1st Amendment rights. I don't have the right to say (when I know it's wrong) that I own the rights to the software you wrote. I don't have the right to threaten to sue all people that use your software because I own it and didn't license it to them. I don't have the right to paint the picture of drugged-up punks using software allegedly stolen from me, thus slandering their good names. You simply don't understand the law. This is a knee-jerk reaction that makes a bigger deal out of something than it should be. Hell it creates an issue where really there wasn't an issue to begin with.
Re:Good to see... by S.O.B. · 2004-03-01 03:42 · Score: 3, Interesting

I agree with your comparison of the differences between how the U.S. handles free speech and how European countries handle it. However, being a Canadian, not an American or a European, I don't have an attachment to either.
I can appreciate the European approach as it discourages people from promoting undesirable or baseless ideas such as hate doctrine. However, the risk is where to draw the line. How do you decide what's acceptable and what's not. Even more important, who decides where the line is to be drawn. It's an approach that can be very susceptible to abuse unless there are some very clear checks and balances. The risk is that you could lose some good by supressing the bad.
On the other hand I can also appreciate the American approach. As a thinking person I like to hear both sides of an issue and make an informed decision so the less restrictive laws in the U.S. are very appealing. However, I don't know if the average U.S. citizen would consciously analyze both sides of an issue like SlashDotters do. Especially since the U.S. media packages issues into easy to digest sound bites that conveniently fit between commercial breaks. There is often more attention given to advertising and ratings than any kind of meanful discussion.
Without doing an in depth comparison on the impact, good and bad, of the two approaches it's difficult to see which one "works" and which one doesn't. In fact, it may not be a case of which one works but instead which one works for your people and in your culture. What works in the U.S. might not work in Germany and vice versa.

--
Some of what I say is fact, some is conjecture, the rest I'm just blowing out my ass...you guess.
Re:Good to see... by pubjames · 2004-03-01 03:45 · Score: 5, Interesting

I know that views like yours are common in the USA. However, many of us here in Europe look to the USA and don't much difference in the level of "free speech" in either place. True, there are a few laws in a few countries in Europe that go against "free speech" in the strictest sense. But in the USA you have something we don't have so much of - increadable social pressure to conform to what society thinks is right.

For instance, we don't have any type of speech that is publicly ridiculed for being "Un-european". We don't have ridiculous over-reactions like that of your country to the exposure of a woman's breast. And what is "free speech" if your actors cannot give their personal opinions about current events when accepting awards?
Re:Good to see... by BobTheLawyer · 2004-03-01 03:45 · Score: 2, Insightful

Making false statements which have no legal basis to extort money from people is a criminal offence in many countries. Free speech is no more relevant to this than it is to blackmail.
Re:Good to see... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-01 03:48 · Score: 2, Insightful

without disagreeing overly with the thread I'll bite on
> "free speech" is very much an American idea

"To speak his thoughts is every freeman's right, in peace and war, in council and in fight."
Homer 700BC

Speaking as an outsider (non-american) it feels like liberties in the US are now amongst the most constrained anywhere.
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.
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
Re:Good to see... by maxwell+demon · 2004-03-01 03:54 · Score: 3, Insightful

Well, the argumentation for the free speech restrictions in Europe is not quite unlike the argumentation of the restrictions in the GPL: In order to protect your rights, we have to restrict you from certain freedoms which would allow you to destroy that freedom.

For GPL software, you may f.ex. not redistribute binaries without source. This is obviously a restriction of your freedom. But the FSF believes this to be necessary to protect your other freedoms given to you through the GPL. Others (like the BSD people) disagree.

In Europe, you may not say certain things which help fascism. This is obviously a restriction of your freedom. But the European countries believe this to be necessary to protect your other freedoms given to you through democracy. Others (like the USA) obviously disagree.

--
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Re:Good to see... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-01 04:00 · Score: 5, Interesting

But I'm an American, not a European, and I have the luxury of living in a land that has never been touched by Fascism

First of all, I'm aware that history books in the USA do a bad job at this, but you really should differentiate between fascism and nazism.

Fascism was the system in place in Italy, Nazism was the system in place in Germany and has a lot in common with it, but there are a few very significant differences.

The most important one is evident from Muscolini's opinion about Hitler, he thought the man was obsessed with racial issues.

In fact, the system as the USA has today is very close to fascism, it is a system in which big business runs the country, and where the government acts on their behalf. Traditional fascism comes with a fair amount of nationalism and national pride, and usually (but not by definition) results in expantionalism. At any rate it perfectly matches Muscolini's own definition of fascism.

This very aspect of Nazism is what provokes very strong reactions among jewish people specifically, but also among almost anyone who has lived through it in EUrope, and those who were brought up knowing about what happened.

Both Nazism and Fascism heavily lean on glorifying the past, and use a lot of symbolism in order to keep people from looking at reality.

What was forbidden in France is selling things that have been used in such a way by Nazis speicifcally, interestingly enough, you wont see the same vigorous attempts at suppression with purely fascist things.

When looking at the response to nazism in much of Europe, you have to think back to events on sept. 11 and what emotions it triggered in the USA. multiply it a few 1000 times to get to the scale of what Europe experienced under Nazi rule, and you can also count on emotions being proportionally stronger.

Regarding Germany, laws there are not much different from those in the rest of Europe, tho tend to get implemented more strictly (but hey, that is a german thing to do, they do that with lots more then just those rules and laws)

That for example Mein Kampf is not available in Germany is first of all due to the current copyright holders preventing that (happesn to be the government of bavaria if I'm not mistaken) and not because of it being forbidden by law.

Finally, not allowing 'hate speech' as is the case in many European countries is just putting a slightly different line then is done in the USA. Which line is better is up for debate, but neither have absolute free speech.
Re:Good to see... by Damek · 2004-03-01 04:15 · Score: 3, Interesting

mod parent up - how can anyone be so naive? Reputations get ruined on national television in the USA all the time, with no proof whatsoever. How many times a day do we hear the word "allegations" in connection with some person or company? Allegation basically means "accused without proof".

And the media loves this stuff. They get to tell/sell simple stories that the uneducated public understands, with a good guy/bad guy, never mind if any of it is true.

Making unproven allegations is one of the most basic tried-and-true PR methods. Don't like someone? Sully their name. Don't matter if it's true.

I would think most Slashdot readers would know better.
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.
Re:Good to see... by Asic+Eng · 2004-03-01 04:25 · Score: 4, Informative

There is an important distinction there between German and US law: German companies do not have free speech rights. This right is solely reserved for individuals. This means a CEO of a company has the same free speech rights as anyone else - but if he wants to issue a press release using company resources there are restrictions on the content.
Re:Good to see... by Alidar · 2004-03-01 04:52 · Score: 2, Insightful

Regardless of 'social pressure', something being ridiculed is not the same as lack of free speech. In fact, the reason something is allowed to be ridiculed is the freedom of speech.

--
HTTP Status 418
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?
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.
Re:Good to see... by Baumi · 2004-03-01 06:24 · Score: 2, Insightful

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).

In a way that's just what SCO was doing: Spreading FUD by claiming that there were lawsuits coming when in reality there wasn't any base to that. That's not so different from yelling "fire" in a theatre.

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.

Cut me some slack here, okay? I admit that my wording there wasn't very exact. (IANAL, and neither is English my first language.)

I was not referring to personal conversation, I was referring to libel and slander. If you're lying about your whereabouts, that's not a crime, of course, and it never should be. (Technically, SCO didn't commit crimes, either - they're not being punished for what they said, they're only not allowed to repeat it unless they can beef it up with facts.) But if you're publicly making wrong accusations against someone else, that person should be able to stop you from making those accusations.

Again: Imagine I had a big newspaper and I had it in for you: Would you like me to be able to print big headlines with false accusations against you again and again with no way to stop me? (Fining won't help much - my imaginary self would have enough money to pay that without a wink.)

Or if you had a company and I was a bigger competitor routing claims to the media that your prooduct was somehow defective or dangerous. Shouldn't there be a way to stop me from doing that?

Note that the court order in the article wasn't simply given out of a whim - it was after fact checking that the court concluded that there wasn't enough to back those claims but that they had the potential to hurt SCO's competition.

I agree that it's difficult where to draw the line there, again mainly because IANAL, but free speech does not mean that you're powerless against efficient slanderers. There should be a way to say: "Either give me some proof or shut up."

Baumi
Re:Good to see... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-01 08:06 · Score: 2, Funny

No no you don't quite have it right.

I have some marvellous snake oil for you, which will cure every known disease. You have already been using it as a part of your daily medicines. No, I will not tell you what it is.

Give me $700 or I will sue you.

Yay! by dolo666 · 2004-03-01 01:49 · Score: 3, Interesting

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?

Re:Yay! by socrates32 · 2004-03-01 02:30 · Score: 2, Informative

My only question is if this settlement favours Univention or SCO?

By definition a settlement favours both sides, otherwise they wouldn't agree, right? In a relative sense at least, as the alternative would have to be worse.
In this case, SCO had to back down so that they could keep up the rhetoric for as long as possible back in the USA. The alternative would be, presumably, to have their claims discredited in Germany, thus weakening the position their claiming in the US.

--

-- "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur."
- Whatever is said in Latin sounds profound.

Hmm.. by freerecords · 2004-03-01 01:49 · Score: 5, Interesting

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

Re:Hmm.. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-01 01:56 · Score: 2, Interesting

Your talking about a country where you could take years to even get to trial. By the time our goverment acts the entire thing would be settled in the US courts.

How does it come? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-01 01:50 · Score: 5, Insightful

That US law couldn't do such things?

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.
Re:How does it come? by stienman · 2004-03-01 02:32 · Score: 4, Informative

Take one part "free speech" and two parts "Innocent until proven guilty" and you can pretty much say anything you want in any format as any entity under these laws (the corporation is such an entity) until someone succesfully sues you in a civil suit to stop making false claims.

The hysterisis built into the US legal system, "Innocent until proven guilty" and "beyond reasonable doubt" create a small area inbetween "Truth" and "Lies" where both sides can claim victory: SCO says, "No one can prove these claims irefutabley flase" while others say "SCO cannot prove these claims true."

Meanwhile they can make money off the proposition that they may be true, and people would be better off paying them rather than taking a small risk and waiting to see what the full outcome is. Many companies have little to lose if they 'lose' so they take the risk and don't pay. But many companies either have a lot to lose, or don't understand what they'll lose and so it's safer to not risk it and simply pay up.

Many other countries have much stronger versions of what we call 'slander' or 'libel' - even covering free speech. One cannot make a statement which has not already been shown to be true or can be readily verified by any interested parties. Using phrases such as "may" or "could infringe" or "This contains forward looking statements" do not always satisfy the legal requirements to fall under 'free speech' as they do in the US.

Quite frankly, you can simply say that the US system give them as much rope as they want to use before someone sues them, whereas the German courts step in and prevent them from getting much, if any, hanging rope. Handing down a warning, and knowing what the penalties are beforehand both empowers a company and stops them short of duping too many people.

-Adam
Re:How does it come? by Progman3K · 2004-03-01 02:52 · Score: 2, Interesting

No, I believe he's right:

Corporations have the same rights as INDIVIDUALS under U.S. law.

Therefore, the more money an individual has, the more he can influence the judicial system through lobbyists.

Of course I am basing my understanding from a paper I read some time ago, but that did seem to be the gist of it.

--
I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
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.
Re:How does it come? by geoffspear · 2004-03-01 03:02 · Score: 3, Informative

Lobbying the judicial system with money is, in fact, a felony. You can lobby the legislature all you want, though.

--
Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
Re:How does it come? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-01 03:30 · Score: 3, Funny

> 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.

The USA also has more than 2 parties, people are just too scared to vote their conscience.

"It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see..."
"You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?"
"No", said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like so straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."
"Odd", said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."
"I did", said Ford. "It is."
"So", said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't the people get rid of the lizards?"
"It honestly doesn't occur to them", said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."
"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"
"Oh yes", said Ford with a shrug, "of course".
"But", said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"
"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in." - Douglas Adams, So long, and thanks for all the fish, chapter 36, 1984

Homer: America, take a good look at your beloved candidates. They're nothing but hideous space reptiles. [unmasks them]
[audience gasps in terror]
Kodos: It's true, we are aliens. But what are you going to do about it? It's a two-party system; you have to vote for one of us.
[murmurs]
Man1: He's right, this is a two-party system.
Man2: Well, I believe I'll vote for a third-party candidate.
Kang: Go ahead, throw your vote away.
[Kang and Kodos laugh out loud]
[later] Marge: I don't understand why we have to build a ray gun to aim at a planet I never even heard of.
Homer: Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos. - The Simpsons, Treehouse of Horror VII

"It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it." - Eugene Victor Debs (1855-1926)
Re:How does it come? by ojQj · 2004-03-01 03:52 · Score: 2, Insightful

Speaking as an american in Germany I would agree that there are some important advantages to having more than two parties.
On the down side, the necessity of making compromise may not reduce partisanship. Often times, the other major party is against a new law no matter what it is, just to try and distinguish themselves. Then compromise time comes, and the law is made so complex that no one understands it just so that it *looks* like everyone won. Sometimes, that compromising makes the law in question so ineffective or even damaging that it should never be passed.
For an example, check out the recent "Praxisgebuhr" law in Germany. Before this law, Germans didn't have to pay even a token payment for going to the doctor. As a result, unnecessary costs arose when people went to the doctor for runny noses, hypochondria, and loneliness. Everyone knew it was time for people to bear some token economic consequence for choosing to go to the doctor. Thus was born the "doctor's visit fee". But then it was watered down. Chronically ill don't have to pay the co-pay, and poor people don't have to pay the co-pay. That's fair, you say. But it keeps going until the decision is made that people don't have to pay the co-pay more than once every 4 months. What? Excuse me but unless the purpose is to create a regressive raise in the insurance fees, de-coupling the co-pay from the number of doctor's visits doesn't fulfill the purpose of the law. The law was passed anyways.
Tax law is similar and that creates very real social injustices as only someone above a certain income level can hire someone who actually understands the tax law. This means that poor people pay more taxes than required under the law because the law is to complex to be understood.
There are numerous other problems with the European systems, which seriously weaken their claim to democracy uninfluenced by corporations(party discipline, disproportionate representation at the European level, no class action law suits, etc...).
That's of course not to say that the American system is better. It's not. Both continents have a lot to learn from each other. They both need to STOP being so arrogant and START listening to each other.
Re:How does it come? by Moraelin · 2004-03-01 05:16 · Score: 2, Insightful

I didn't say that the system was perfect, nor that the compromises were always perfect. Politicians are still politicians.

Since you mention the doctor fees, well, it's actually a good example of why the process does work for the people. Some things, like making very poor people pay extra fees would have been very unpopular, so they got changed. Seems like democracy at work to me.

It's not perfect, but let's put it like this: you have to choose between two evils:

(A) Bending over to do what will please the voters, even if it's a stupidity and/or waters down the law, or

(B) Bending over to do what will please the corporate sponsors.

Basically I'll take A over B any time. That's what the government is supposed to do in a democracy, in the first place. That's what "democracy" even means.

Class action lawsuits are also less necessary here in the first place, since most stuff is supposed to be handled by the government and its agencies, rather than feeding hordes of lawyers and mangling everything through courts. Not necessarily saying it's a better system. It's just the way it works here, and so far it worked well enough.

It's not bending over to serve the corporations. Au contraire, it's a uniform and centralized (and bureaucratic) way of dealing with them.

E.g., we actually have laws and government agencies that represent the consumers' rights. If you've been sold snake oil, or otherwise were taken advantage of by a company, you can go to them and they _will_ take action. You don't need to get 10,000 people together and give 90% of the proceeds to the lawyers. The government will do the work for you. It's probably not perfect, but it works.

Tax law, well, I wouldn't call it that much of an injustice. Taxes rise exponentially with income, and go all the way up. Whatever loopholes those tax experts will find, still won't really make the rich pay less taxes than the poor.

--
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Re:How does it come? by Glowing+Fish · 2004-03-01 05:45 · Score: 2, Insightful

There are exceptions to this for speech that is used clearly to harass, intimidate, threaten or extort another person.

For example, it would probably be illegal in the United States for Supermarket Chain A to run an ad that says "Supermarket Chain B's food is poisoned!".

However, it would probably have to be a case where speech is very obviously used for such purposes. SCO hasn't yet reached this point.

The usual disclaimers apply.

--
Hopefully I didn't put any [] around my words.

Full Article Text by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-01 01:51 · Score: 5, Informative

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:

1) SCO Group GmbH (German branch of SCO) has agreed not to allege any more that Linux contains SCO's unlawfully acquired intellectual property.
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.

3) Also they cannot say that Linux is an unauthorized derivative of Unix.

4) Finally SCO Group GmbH is prohibited to threaten to sue Linux users unless they bought SCO Linux or Caldera Linux.

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:

"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. 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. Auch die Behauptung, Linux sei ein nicht autorisiertes Derivat von Unix, ist nicht mehr statthaft. 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. . . .

"Nach diesem wird SCO auch nicht mehr offentlich behaupten, Beweise fur die Urheberrechtsverletzung wurden demnachst vorgelegt. Ausnahme: Sollten diese Beweise innerhalb eines Monats nach diesem Vergleich vorgelegt werden, kann die SCO Group GmbH solch eine Behauptung weiter veroffentlichen."

Re:Full Article Text by Renegade+Lisp · 2004-03-01 02:01 · Score: 5, Informative

Here's a translation of the German bit:
"SCO Group GmbH will henceforth in its business relations, that is, towards customers and users, no longer claim that Linux operating systems contain illegally aquired intellectual property of SCO Unix. The settlement further prohibits SCO from claiming that end users, if they employ Linux, may be held liable for infringement of SCO Intellectual Properties. Further, the claim that Linux is an unauthorized derivate of Unix, is no longer acceptable. Last, but not least, SCO Group GmbH may no longer claim that buyers of Linux operating systems had to fear criminal prosecution, unless the operating system that was bought is SCO Linux or Caldera Linux...
"Henceforth, SCO will also cease to claim publically that proof for the copyright infringement would be presented shortly. Exception: Should this proof be presented within one month after this settlement, then such a claim may further be made publically."
Re:Full Article Text by multi+io · 2004-03-01 02:26 · Score: 2, Informative

4) Finally SCO Group GmbH is prohibited to threaten to sue Linux users unless they bought SCO Linux or Caldera Linux.
I asked a couple of others who speak German to make sure this last was an accurate translation,
It is not. (the verbalization is a bit ambiguous indeed, even in the english translation, AFAICT. Natural languages are no programming languages)
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.
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. . . .
This says that, before the latest settlement, SCO used to claim that buyers of Linux OSes had to fear prosecution unless they bought SCO Linux or Caldera Linux. SCO is no longer allowed to say that.

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.

Re:Gagged..... by Sique · 2004-03-01 03:17 · Score: 2, Insightful

A) It was not the gouvernment telling SCO to shut up.

B) It was not an order to shut up, it was a signed agreement between SCO and Univention representing Linux companies and users.

C) This is a contract, nothing else, and SCO Group GmbH as the german part of SCO is allowed to sign any contract they like (if it displeases the SCO head quarter they can still fire the german CEO).

D) If SCO Group GmbH would have acted as the official voice of SCO in Germany, they would have been liable for damages caused by unfair competition. From the german point of view SCOs claims against IBM look unfounded and only used to deprive Linux companies of their business, because there hasn't been any hard evidence for an actual copyrigth infringment yet, and breach of contract between SCO (U.S.) and IBM (U.S.) shouldn't affect german users of Linux.

E) So it was a wise move for the german SCO branch to keep out of the SCO game in U.S. until either facts are established or SCO takes another turn. With the contract in hand the german SCO branch can tell their U.S. headquarters why they don't risk the SCO game in Germany: Because it's to expensive. 10000 Euros per statement. This is understandable even to SCO in Utah.

--
.sig: Sique *sigh*

Fall stock price Fall! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-01 01:53 · Score: 5, Interesting

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...

Re:Fall stock price Fall! by hconnellan · 2004-03-01 02:56 · Score: 2, Informative

Don't count on it.

Say what? by lordsilence · 2004-03-01 01:53 · Score: 3, Insightful

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

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.

Re:S.U.S.E by StupidGoose · 2004-03-01 02:16 · Score: 5, Informative

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.
Re:S.U.S.E by dabadab · 2004-03-01 02:48 · Score: 2, Interesting

Well, I don't think so - I mean I doubt they were nervous about this SCO nonsense in the first place. Actually, I work for a Germany-based big corp and there is work on transitioning from SCO UnixWare to Linux as they clearly see that:
1. SCO will die soon
2. Linux will not

--
Real life is overrated.
Re:S.U.S.E by Serious+Simon · 2004-03-01 03:03 · Score: 2, Informative

But still. it's spelled SUSE
Still not right: it's SuSE.
This is because in German, nouns are always capitalized, so the full name is Software und System Entwicklung (Software and System Development).
GmbH (Gesellschaft mit beschrankter Haftung) is just German for "Ltd" (sort of).

Good ol' Germans! by Xpilot · 2004-03-01 01:54 · Score: 5, Funny

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

Re:Good ol' Germans! by Lehk228 · 2004-03-01 01:58 · Score: 3, Funny

I am half German and half irish, so i do my best work under the influence;p (of whisky, not the Freebase that Darl has been on)

--
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
Re:Good ol' Germans! by IamGarageGuy+2 · 2004-03-01 02:18 · Score: 3, Interesting

How do you see this as racism. I would much more be willing to be called an engineer than a lawyer. I believe the vast majority of /.'ers would also. This is a compliment to the german quality of engineering. Why does any comment about a particular people have to be racist? Maybe if you would quit looking for the politcally correct way, you may see something that broadens your mind instead of your sense of style.

--
Stay tuned for new sig...
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.
Re:Good ol' Germans! by pjt33 · 2004-03-01 06:20 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

Re:It's about time.... by judicar · 2004-03-01 01:54 · Score: 2, Informative

Yeah this whole "free speech" thing is really a drag, i hope it's just a fad.

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...

Germany has a sense of humor by Liselle · 2004-03-01 01:55 · Score: 5, Funny

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."

Re:Germany has a sense of humor by EricWright · 2004-03-01 01:58 · Score: 5, Informative

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!!!
Re:Germany has a sense of humor by jkrise · 2004-03-01 02:15 · Score: 4, Funny

Given the amount of mis-transalation and mis-representation by SCO in this case, I think it's best the press goes with this version - SCO can sue only Caldera / SCO Linux users in Germany. That seems pretty fair in this case.

-

--
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
Re:Germany has a sense of humor by dirkx · 2004-03-01 02:29 · Score: 5, Informative

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
Re:Germany has a sense of humor by Jacek+Poplawski · 2004-03-01 02:34 · Score: 3, Insightful

SCO can't sue any Linux users except their own customers.

Both two customers?
Re:Germany has a sense of humor by 4eek · 2004-03-01 02:38 · Score: 5, Informative

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]
Re:Germany has a sense of humor by llogiq · 2004-03-01 02:45 · Score: 5, Informative

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.
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/
Re:Germany has a sense of humor by Elektroschock · 2004-03-01 11:21 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

Cat Got My Tongue by the_mad_poster · 2004-03-01 01:56 · Score: 4, Funny

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!

Re:Cat Got My Tongue by mattjb0010 · 2004-03-01 02:01 · Score: 5, Funny

Hello, Darl? This is irony calling.

Yeah, I'd like to take an iron to Darl too...
Re:Cat Got My Tongue by mxf8bv · 2004-03-01 02:07 · Score: 2, Insightful

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."
Re:Cat Got My Tongue by Sique · 2004-03-01 03:28 · Score: 2, Informative

Just look at the actual agreement: Univention, the other part of the agreement, represents Linux users and developers except SCO. So the agreement doesn't cover users and developers of SCO's Linux offerings (Caldera and SCO Linux).

The agreement just says that if SCO Group GmbH started to ask their own customers for an US$699 additional license, Univention doesn't bother. If SCO Group GmbH goes against people and companies represented by Univention, the 10000 Euro clause in the agreement holds.

--
.sig: Sique *sigh*

another good thing is this by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-01 01:57 · Score: 5, Informative

Nach diesem wird SCO auch nicht mehr offentlich behaupten, Beweise fur die Urheberrechtsverletzung wurden demnachst vorgelegt.

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 (Verfuegung) by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-01 01:59 · Score: 4, Informative

The court order (in German)

Germans... by SisyphusShrugged · 2004-03-01 01:59 · Score: 4, Funny

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

Re:Germans... by goldspider · 2004-03-01 03:00 · Score: 2, Insightful

Actually, the Allied Powers (inc. Great Britain, United States, France, Russia) got rid of the Nazis. It's not like they were thrown out by an internal rebellion of the German people.
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

Cant find it mentioned on the financial news... by BJury · 2004-03-01 01:59 · Score: 4, Informative

2:00, nothing yet on either Reuters or Bloomberg news...

Lets hope its true!

Re:Cant find it mentioned on the financial news... by BJury · 2004-03-01 02:43 · Score: 2, Informative

Hmmm...

SCOX is currently up 4%, presumably on the licence news from EV1Servers.net.

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.

Correction on #4 by kmonsen · 2004-03-01 02:00 · Score: 3, Informative

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.

Dupe? by FrostedWheat · 2004-03-01 02:00 · Score: 2, Informative

No, not the story. Well kinda...

Didn't LinuxTag do the same thing? Force SCO to stop putting out unfounded claims in Germany?

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.

The Germans once again have right idea by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-01 02:01 · Score: 2, Funny

"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.

sue their own customers by cnb · 2004-03-01 02:05 · Score: 5, Funny

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.

Sounds like a cool twisted ploy to make them lose their two remaining german customers.

- cnb

Translations... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-01 02:06 · Score: 5, Informative

@ 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."

Re:Translations... by Renegade+Lisp · 2004-03-01 02:23 · Score: 2, Informative

You translated:
"[...] 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..."
Since this bit has been the most controversial one, I believe you should be careful about doing any boolean arithmetic with it. The negations in the original are different:
"SCO Group GmbH must no longer claim that purchasers of Linux operating systems must fear lawsuits, unless the operating system that was bought is SCO Linux or Caldera Linux..."
Yes, it's logically the same, but natural language sometimes is not entirely logical. Just to clear up any potential confusion.

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:DEUTSCHLAND! by Sweetshark · 2004-03-01 02:07 · Score: 3, Informative

Oh, the irony ...
You are celebrating this event with a song mostly forbidden in Germany.

What exactly.. by cypherwise · 2004-03-01 02:08 · Score: 4, Interesting

..did Univention have to give up in the settlement? Did they have to pay SCO to stop it's FUD? What are the details of this agreement? If SCO actually got some type of monetary compensation the German legal system just folded when they should've held and continued to let SCO's play up it's bluff.

If I am wrong, someone please help clarify.

SCO has sold a license! by 10Ghz · 2004-03-01 02:08 · Score: 4, Interesting

Link

Quote: "LINDON, Utah, March 1 /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."

--
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.

Report SCO's license fraud to the police! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-01 02:11 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

Muzzling SCO is irrelevant at this point by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-01 02:11 · Score: 5, Interesting

Somebody has sure muzzled Darl since the Harvard talk a few weeks ago. SCO ain't made a single peep since then.

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.

The court of judge subjectstorm by subjectstorm · 2004-03-01 02:17 · Score: 5, Funny

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!!! **

Re:DEUTSCHLAND! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-01 02:17 · Score: 4, Informative

get your facts straight dude...

here.. enlightment..

Re:DEUTSCHLAND! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-01 02:19 · Score: 2, Informative

...since it's the last part of their former anthem

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.

I think its about time... by watzinaneihm · 2004-03-01 02:21 · Score: 2, Informative

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 Enterprise Act by NZheretic · 2004-03-01 02:23 · Score: 4, Interesting

From the UK Office of Fair Trading
Enforcement of consumer law under the Enterprise Act

Under Part 8 of the Enterprise Act, the OFT and other bodies responsible for consumer law enforcement, have stronger powers to seek court orders against businesses who breach certain consumer protection laws.
Before taking court action (ie seeking an Enforcement Order), the OFT and our enforcement partners will always invite the trader concerned to respond to the allegations against them, and they will be able to give binding commitments (undertakings) instead of going to court.
The enforcement procedure is based on the Stop Now Regulations which it replaces along with Part III of the Fair Trading Act.
Download Enforcement of consumer protection legislation for more detailed information on the enforcement procedure

Additional banned words.. by Channard · 2004-03-01 02:27 · Score: 2, Funny

... from the follow-up lawsuit include.

D*ryl McBr*de

Ly*ng Scumf*cks

S*mpr*ni

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

About the german anthem... by orzetto · 2004-03-01 02:31 · Score: 3, Informative

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

original injunction by graf0z · 2004-03-01 02:35 · Score: 5, Informative

The settlement is based on this preliminary injunction from may 30 2003 containing - besides juristic framework - just one sentence:

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

/graf0z.

German to English? by utlemming · 2004-03-01 02:41 · Score: 4, Funny

Forgive me, but someone has to say it --

"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.

Dear SCO by Lobo_Louie · 2004-03-01 02:42 · Score: 5, Funny

Dear SCO,
You're null unt void.

Signed,
Germany

You learn something every day... by El · 2004-03-01 02:49 · Score: 3, Funny

I didn't know weasels could be muzzled!

--

"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney

Contacting SCO's European Office by CdBee · 2004-03-01 02:52 · Score: 5, Informative

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

According to German Law by 4eek · 2004-03-01 02:52 · Score: 5, Informative

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]

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.

EV1 used to be Rackshack + MS Connection by isn't+my+name · 2004-03-01 02:57 · Score: 4, Informative

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.

Re:EV1 used to be Rackshack + MS Connection by daperdan · 2004-03-01 04:49 · Score: 2, Interesting

Yes Rackshack is a dirt-cheap hosting provider. I've been with them for 2 years and have been amazed at the service and quality of their offerings. I use their service to host legitimate Business sites.(No Spam).

I have 2 servers at rackshack and the uptime has been nearly perfect. I can't say enough good things about Rackshack/EV1 after having tried so many other hosting facilities. Where else can you get 700 GIG of transfer for 99 bucks a month. The important thing to me is that I have 100% control of the servers. I can install whatever I like.

If anyone can point me to a better deal for dedicated hosting I'd be supprised. Don't bash these guys just because they signed a deal with SCO. I'm sure they paid very little for the contract and the free advertising that will come out of the press release will be well worth the money paid to SCO.

What does it matter? It's the internet! by Stonent1 · 2004-03-01 02:57 · Score: 2, Insightful

The world is the internet's audience, they can still say what they want and it will come back to people in Germany.

Re:What does it matter? It's the internet! by Asic+Eng · 2004-03-01 04:48 · Score: 2, Interesting

It will come back to some people in Germany, but not all. Besides news of the fact that they've been forbidden from making these claims is also going around - and will make their claims at lot less credible.

Re:Finally by Curtman · 2004-03-01 03:13 · Score: 5, Interesting

I see Yahoo is doing its typical head-in-sand journalism. No mention of this anywhere, but what the top story?

SCO Signs Intellectual Property License Agreement with Leading Dedicated Server Provider

Makes me sick.

You gotta love german by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-01 03:15 · Score: 5, Funny

Any article that starts with...

Die SCO Group...

has got to be good!

Re:Finally by tomknight · 2004-03-01 03:22 · Score: 5, Funny

Havinmg misread the headline, I thought it weas some pretty strange action:

"Germany Nuzzles SCO"

I think it's time I went home.

Tom.

--
Oh arse

Re:What? by anno1602 · 2004-03-01 03:25 · Score: 2, Informative

The article doesn't mention what they can't say

Yes, it does. E.g., they may not say that Linux contains unlicensed SCO IP prior to this claim being proven in court. Standard procedure in Germany, really: If you say something that could hurt somebody else, you have to be able to prove it, or stop saying it.

thought experiment... by Chilles · 2004-03-01 03:35 · Score: 4, Funny

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?

Is this possible in the US? by SoopahMan · 2004-03-01 04:07 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.

Free Speech by microbox · 2004-03-01 04:44 · Score: 2, Insightful

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

no big problem by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-01 05:04 · Score: 2, Insightful

> 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.

Just to get some things straight... by Snibriloid · 2004-03-01 06:22 · Score: 3, Informative

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 :-)

Unfair : Re:Finally by Forge · 2004-03-01 06:46 · Score: 2, Insightful

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 ?

German Unfair Competition Caselaw by Karl-Friedrich+Lenz · 2004-03-01 14:21 · Score: 2, Interesting

From my blog post on this:

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:

"Any person who, in the course of business activity and for purposes of competition, commits acts contrary to honest practices may be enjoined from these acts and held liable for damages."

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

138 of 349 comments (clear)