Germany Muzzles SCO 349
skyryder12 writes " We have news from Germany. It seems, according to Computerworld, 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. Story at GrokLaw"
Full Article Text (Score:5, Informative)
We have news from Germany. It seems, according to Computerwoche [computerwoche.de], 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:
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:
Re:It's about time.... (Score:2, Informative)
another good thing is this (Score:5, Informative)
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...
Re:Germany has a sense of humor (Score:5, Informative)
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!!!
The court order (Verfuegung) (Score:4, Informative)
Cant find it mentioned on the financial news... (Score:4, Informative)
Lets hope its true!
Correction on #4 (Score:3, Informative)
Dupe? (Score:3, Informative)
Didn't LinuxTag do the same thing? Force SCO to stop putting out unfounded claims in Germany?
Re:Full Article Text (Score:5, Informative)
"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:another good thing is this (Score:1, Informative)
> 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...
SCO has already been gagged from their constant press releases by the Judge listening to the two hearings so far.
Notice exactly zero press releases full of FUD from SCO related to Linux, suing end users and SCO vs IBM in the last few weeks? They were told to shut it. It doesn't stop them acting in court, but it stops their bullshit public relations antics
Translations... (Score:5, Informative)
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:DEUTSCHLAND! (Score:3, Informative)
You are celebrating this event with a song mostly forbidden in Germany [brandenburghistorica.com].
Re:Good to see... (Score:4, Informative)
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 [yahoo.com] to sign up....
Re:Good to see... (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.
Re:S.U.S.E (Score:5, Informative)
Gesellschaft fur Software-und Systementwicklung MBH.
Company for software and system development.
But still. it's spelled SUSE.
Re:DEUTSCHLAND! (Score:4, Informative)
here.. enlightment.. [brandenburghistorica.com]
Re:Good to see... (Score:5, Informative)
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:DEUTSCHLAND! (Score:2, Informative)
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... (Score:3, Informative)
Finally SCO has sold one of their licenses to a commercial Linux user. Here is the press release [yahoo.com]
The buyer is Everyones servers, a web hoster. I wonder why This guy [ev1servers.net] is doing this?
Re:Translations... (Score:3, Informative)
"[...] 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:Full Article Text (Score:2, Informative)
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.
Re:Germany has a sense of humor (Score:5, Informative)
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:Yay! (Score:2, Informative)
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.
About the german anthem... (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 [serve.com]
Re:How does it come? (Score:5, Informative)
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
original injunction (Score:5, Informative)
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 [leo.org]
Re:Germany has a sense of humor (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
See, there's this thing called slander.... (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Cant find it mentioned on the financial news... (Score:2, Informative)
SCOX is currently up 4%, presumably on the licence news from EV1Servers.net.
Re:Germany has a sense of humor (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Contacting SCO's European Office (Score:5, Informative)
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.
According to German Law (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Fall stock price Fall! (Score:2, Informative)
EV1 used to be Rackshack + MS Connection (Score:4, Informative)
They used to use primarily Red Hat based systems but have begun pushing MicroSoft systems recently [microsoft.com]. 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:How does it come? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:S.U.S.E (Score:3, Informative)
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).
Re:Good to see... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What? (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.
Re:Cat Got My Tongue (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:How does it come? (Score:1, Informative)
Next time, note when a crime happens, that it is IMPERATIVE for the media to say something like, "This incident is not related to terrorist activities"... then try to reason WHY this has to be said.
More on topic... what you say is a good summation. Do note though it takes $ to stop SCO legally. And only those that have $ can stop it. So, the average Joe is SOL (at least THIS average Joe is). Germany has stepped up to the plate for the little guy. If it were free to get a court to look at cases/injunctions/etc, then I would be more optimistic on American processes. Then again, the Better Business Bureau may be utilized in this case... but I have not seen ANYONE suggest this.
Re:Good to see... (Score:5, Informative)
Just to get some things straight... (Score:3, Informative)
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