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.

Comments

A look inside the mind of madmen

[Aneurysm9]

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?

Wouldn't it be illegal to do this too

[thegrassyknowl]

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.

IANAL, but

[idontgno]

I don't see how hiring a public relations firm is a meaningful separation of enjoined action (continued public unsubstantiated allegations of copyright violation) from enjoined actor (employees of SCO). In other words, if I'm legally prohibited from doing an act, aren't I usually legally prohibited from hiring an agent to do it for me?

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?

FUD?

[Neon Spiral Injector]

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.

Still a violation? IANAL

[Felinoid]

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.

Herr Goebbels said...

[Sfing_ter]

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.