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.
If SCO can be sued and they settle by agreeing to not spread their propaganda, then it's equally possible that SCO's sidekick could be sued for exactly the same thing. Since there is a court precedent, wouldn't any company willing to do this think twice - because they would be sued too?
Keep your eyes to the sky.
Aren't people already suspecting SCO is doing Microsoft's dirty work in its fight against OSS?
SCO got a German PR agency to write their claims in a news release. Since it's pretty obvious that no PR agency would by itself do so, couldn't SCO still be fined for making these claims, even if not directly? Even so, the agreement should've stopped "the claims being made" rather than "SCO making the claims," since SCO markedly benefits by the claims and can almost always be shown responsible for some random third-party's claim.
Interesting that this gains its strength through an out-of-court settlement with a private company that extends a temporary injunction against SCO's claims. Some US group (EFF? Red Hat? OSDN? Netscape? Isn't there a group of Linux vendors? FSF?) should try to do the same - get something small done in court, to say "We're not afraid of fighting this in court," then extend that considerably out of court with a promise to return to court.
Heh, the ad on this article is GlobalServers' "Stop worrying about SCO" ad.
Also, it appears that SCO insiders now own less than 50% of the stock, while institutions own a like 40% and over 10% is in private hands.
So, unlike the last time that SCO was trading as a penny stock, it might be possible for some enterprising company to just buy a controlling share for 60 million and be done with it.
This is unless the instituational holders have some vested interest in seeing debacle continue. I would think that it there are several two and three letter companies that might be willing to pay a significant premium to make SCO go away.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
I don't pretend to be a stock market genius but this is interesting too.. http://finance.yahoo.com/q/it?s=SCOX Doesn't that page basically say that all insider trading since June of 2003 has been selling. Shouldn't shareholders be concerned with almost 10 months of insider selling?