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.
A SCO story! It's about time!
sig != null
This is just one of those stories where you hold your head in your hands and sigh. Now, SCO, write "I will observe the spirit of the law and not the letter" a thousand times on the board.
The Yasashii Syndicate ||
Go check Groklaw. IBM is asking for a declaratory judgement. SCOX trading tomorrow should be, um, amusing.
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?
Everytime anyone says SCO you'll be fined eu1000
You said SCO!
Oooops I said SCO!
I said SCO again!
NI!
*DrugCheese rants*
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200403301 84527522
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-5182078.html
Go not unto/. for advice, for you will be told both yea and nay (but have nothing to do with the question)
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.
Keep your eyes to the sky.
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!
Then I can scan it and finally use ghostscript's toilet paper setting, I'd print SCO liscenses for everyone!
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.
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.
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.
now I lay me down, to sleep
I pray the lord, my linux keep
and if I die, before I wake
please cause the failure, of Darl's brakes.
-AMEN-
Obama is a twitter sock puppet
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