Slashdot Mirror
SCO Uses 3rd Parties To Spread Claims In Germany
kryonD writes "According to this Computer Weekly article, SCO is no longer allowed to spread their FUD in Germany. This wasn't even a court or government order, but an out of court settlement with a small company. They even get 'fined' EU10,000 by the company for every breach of the settlement. Although, it appears from the article that SCO is side-stepping the agreement by commissioning 3rd party firms to spread their FUD for them. The settlement happened last month, but this is the first I have heard of it. I wonder what made them back down so quickly."
We mentioned the settlement earlier this month (including prohibitions on making certain claims); the news is the attempt to circumvent it.
Fine SCO every time someone writes another article about them. They're being so damn frivolous that it pains me to hear anything else about them short of their ultimate demise.
It's this kind of behavior that helps us see why they're afraid of showing code. They think that as soon as they do someone will find a clever way around their claims, just as they would do if put in the same position. Now, that doesn't change the fact that a lot of someones will probably find a lot of clever ways around their claims, but isn't that exactly what they should want if they were living in the same world as the rest of us?
There was Cowboy Neal at the wheel of a bus to never-ever land.
If SCO isn't allowed to spread FUD then wouldn't commissioning other companies to do it also not be allowed?
The only way it would be legal is if the other company was acting on its own. If SCO paid them to say they were not acting on behalf of SCO, wouldn't that be illegal too?
The settlement disallows employees of SCO making claims agains Linux, but by commissioning an advertising company the company becomes employeed by SCO in some sort of sense... the article said that it was a borderline tactic, but methinks that if it wound up in court SCO would be penalised.
I drink to make other people interesting!
Q.
Insert Signature Here
I don't think SCO should be completely ignored as long as they're still alive and kicking because their FUD machine is a dangerous thing, but maybe they should be limited to one weekly roundup instead of their near-daily coverage.
I guess not always. But it seems like it sure should have been in this case, and if the settlement had that loophole then shame on Univention's lawyers for letting that slip.
Another interesting point, too. According to the Groklaw article about the settlement, the per-offense fine is only about 10,000 euros. That's not a lot, really; just a tiny extra bit of marketing budget for the FUD machine. Is that really all the teeth the settlement has?
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
They could "work[] to create legal conditions" the same way they are here, through litigation. If TSG succeeds in their litigation here in the US they would have effectively created legal conditions (i.e., precedent indicating Linux infringes TSG copyrights) which would pressure Linux users to purchase licenses from TSG.
There was Cowboy Neal at the wheel of a bus to never-ever land.
What the Linux community needs is a solid defeat of their suits - not a lucrative buyout triggering golden-parachutes for the execs.
If all it takes is a couple empty threats to sell for tens to hundreds of millions of dollars, it's the wrong message to send.
I just thought of this, with the number of times the summary said, "FUD".
Can we really call the crap SCO is spewing, "FUD"? At this point, no one fears them, everyone is certain they are making this stuff up as they go, of that there is no doubt.
I think the term adds too much credibility to SCO's statements.
There.. in the title and everything... IANAL
But if SCO agrees not to spread propaganda and then used proxies to spread propaganda didn't they just violate the agreement?
SCO seams to have a very... creative interpretation of laws as they apply to them and others.
I've recently had the opratunity to read vareous text files on how to steal, rip off, blow up, etc etc etc by the crooks that use and perficted those techniques.
Very intresting read if you know how to read between the lines. Basicly they have very unusual/odd interpretations of the applicable laws.
For example one crook has a whole detailed thing on how to get out the door with stuff he didn't buy and create the illusion that he did. (Probably dosen't work anymore).
The intresting part is how he views the applicable laws. He seems to believe that you need to get out the door before you can be stopped for theft. I've observed a few occasions where a crook was cought BEFORE leaving the store. Again IANAL but it sure as heck looks like he was cought dead to rights but I'd have to see how it played out in the corts before I'd know.
The diffrence between the typical crook and SCO is most of what the typical crook is doing is trying to NOT envoke the law no matter how much he believes its on his side. SCO however isn't making any such efforts.
I don't actually exist.
As Joseph Goebbels said, that if you repeat a lie often enough, people will end up believing it.
This is what SCrOtum's plan is, to keep the FUD spewing forth and just the politicians who keep getting elected, it is what the "people" know, because they keep hearing about it.
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing. Emo Philips
omg darl shutup. DMCA has nothing to do with this. sco was prohibited from making fruadulent statements in an attempt to scam money out of people. example ( this is EXACTLY what SCO are doing ) I send you a letter stating that i am the real owner of your house and that you must start paying me rent. upon your requesting proof of my claims I refuse and threaten to sue you, and that the only way to prevent me from sueing you is to pay me. only a fool would allow this to happen.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
Yes, I know, there is much to not like about European politics and they sometimes have strange ways about doing things. And the taxes, holy cow. But at least they know that the United States does not rule the world.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
Probably not the big one. This only is a declaratory judgement on SCO's copyrights, which, in the Groklaw web site it mentions, SCO hasn't brought up (yet).
If the judge says there are no copyright infringements, there could still be contract violations, which is what SCO is suing IBM over.
This might get rid of some of the RedHat and Novell lawsuits, but not the original IBM suit.
Ok, just suppose for a moment that I kept telling you that you may be infringing on my copyright so you owe me money but when you ask me for proof so that you can stop or buy a license from me I say, "No, I won't tell you but I'll be happy to sell you a license." What do you think now, would you just give me money?