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"
Finally (Score:0, Insightful)
Good to see... (Score:5, Insightful)
How does it come? (Score:5, Insightful)
Gagged..... (Score:5, Insightful)
Watching from the sidelines, I'm sometimes disappointed at the trial by media and sensationalist reporting going on in the US. But then I'm not an American so maybe I'm out of touch.
Say what? (Score:3, Insightful)
S.U.S.E (Score:5, Insightful)
The customer is always right? (Score:5, Insightful)
SCO is only allowed to threaten people that actually bought Caldera or SCO linux? Good thing I never bought either then...
Re:Good to see... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Good to see... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:DEUTSCHLAND! (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Good to see... (Score:0, Insightful)
Re:Full Article Text (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Another idea (Score:5, Insightful)
I should fine you 10 000 Euros for having to tell you this after it has been mentioned in every fscking SCO story. Besides, I would think a story relating to a case that threatens Free and open source software would be considered "news" on a site full of FOSS fans.
Again, you're free to uncheck "Caldera" whenever you want. No more SCO. Enjoy.
In conclusion... speak for yourself.
Re:How does it come? (Score:4, Insightful)
In many parts of Europe, it's the opposite. A company, no matter how well respected or large will always have to bow down to the will of the people in the end. This is what's happened as a result, and Germany made the right decision to act.
Re:There is no "trial by media" (Score:5, Insightful)
I honestly question why judges don't want cameras in their courtrooms. Every word that is said in that courtroom is still going to be talked about too much by the media anyway, so why deny the public the chance to see primary source material instead of leaving the public watching commentators alone?
Re:Cat Got My Tongue (Score:2, Insightful)
" [...] as it could have the meaning that SCO is after all allowed to threaten their own customers with the prospect of criminal prosecution or they are not allowed to say that all Linux users but those who bought from Caldera or SCO could have to face criminal prosecution."
Re:Good to see... (Score:5, Insightful)
They can't say it unless they prove it. You can't destroy anyones reputation just because. First you gotta prove it...
(*) King Diamond
Report SCO's license fraud to the police! (Score:2, Insightful)
Unfortunately we cannot report an offence to the police, so that the intstitutions can start a criminal investigation (fraud). The reason is that SCO does not sell their licenses in Germany.
But in other European countries where
SCO is on the market with its licenses, a report to the police may be helpful.
Calling for a public prosecutor is no risk for us and free of charge.
Meiner Ansicht nach ist SCO ein Fall fur den Staatsanwalt, man sollte
Strafanzeigen wegen Betruges stellen. Leider konnen wir das in Deutschland
nicht. Der Vorteil einer Strafanzeige liegt darin, dass ein Staatsanwalt die
Untersuchung ubernimmt und wir nichts zahlen mussen. Im Europaischen Ausland
sollten wir gemeinsam mit befreundeten Organisationen entsprechende
Strafanzeigen wegen Betruges stellen.
Re:Good to see... (Score:5, Insightful)
Can the open source developers affected by SCO's statements lay their hands on millions of $s from the Bank of Canada or Deutsche Bank to bolster their case? Free speech isn't free if it costs a fortune in court....
-
Re:Good to see... (Score:5, Insightful)
Free speech is fine when we're talking about opinions and facts - it shouldn't protect lying and baseless claims.
Baumi
Re:Good to see... (Score:5, Insightful)
They have been barred (as a result of an out-of-court SETTLEMENT) from making unsubstantiated claims that are intended to harm their competitor's business.
Where is the First Amendment violation?
newSCO had an opportunity to back up their claims in court, but instead AGREED to back down, so they could keep up the rhetoric back home.
Re:Good to see... (Score:5, Insightful)
Say what you want about the RIAA, but at least when they threaten to sue somebody, they follow through on it. I don't see it as that bad a thing to require that when SCO announces they're going to file a lawsuit, they should at least have to do it. Afterall, a victory against just one defendant would legitimize SCO's main claim that they're owed money by everyone who loses Linux. However, if they lose, most of their FUD will be declared something that doesn't stand up in court.
Re:Good to see... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good to see... (Score:5, Insightful)
U.S. courts muzzle people as well
Re:Good ol' Germans! (Score:5, Insightful)
The lawyers are here because the law is overly complex, ambiguous, and exploitable. In other words, the root of the problem is government. As long as the law is exploitable, there will be a demand to exploit the law. The lawyers are only here to supply the demand.
Everyone wants a piece of the pie, and the US government's solution is to keep producing more and more pie (to continuously expand the scope of government). This is a classic example of government creating problems of which the "solution" requires (guess what) more government. The real solution, of course, is to limit the size of the pie.
Re:Good to see... (Score:4, Insightful)
There's always the counter example to unbridled free speech in the form of the "falsely yelling fire in the theatre" rule.
Free speech rules come with some common sense restrictions, which are that it can be restricted in cases where it is shown to be both false and solely intended to harm others. SCO appears to meet both criteria.
This proves it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good to see... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Germany has a sense of humor (Score:3, Insightful)
Both two customers?
Re:Good to see... (Score:5, Insightful)
- The Earth is round
- The Earth revolves around the sun
- Evolution exists
- Free (as in beer)
- There is no proof that Cigarette smoke is linked to higher cancer rates.
A lot of things are taken as "obviously" false until they are proven true.
-Ab
Re:Good to see... (Score:5, Insightful)
Regulating what a company can say is just fine. If the shareholders don't like it, they are still perfectly capable of speaking in their capacity as individual citizens.
Common sense in Germany (Score:5, Insightful)
Is there a way to send this to the judge in Utah? It might make this a short case.
Re:How does it come? (Score:5, Insightful)
In Europe this hasn't happened yet.
I'm not saying that European politicians are born more honest. They're not.
I do say, however, that here the democratic checks still work. The press, the unions, the other parties _and_ the other countries in the EU will raise a ruckus sky-high at the slightest hint that a politician may be bought or acting against the people's interest.
Maybe more important is that here, to the best of my knowledge, all countries have more than two parties. There is no lack of choice for voting someone else into office, if the current lot does a bad job.
Better yet, most often parties have to form fragile alliances to be anywhere near a majority. You can't take "we're the majority" for granted and do whatever you damn please. (I.e., reward those who paid for your campaign.) Often to get your own Law X voted, you have to secure the support of one or two other parties. Which might imply altering the law so they like it too, or supporting their own Law Y, or whatnot.
Chances are good enough that enough of those will do the populist thing and refuse to support stuff that would piss off their voters. Or want to have it changed so it at least looks good to their voters.
Speaking of fragile alliances: having one or two members in the parliament can (and often does) make _the_ difference between being the alliance leader or having to follow. There's a real competition for Joe Average's vote. You don't want to piss off Joe Average too much.
What does it matter? It's the internet! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Germany has a sense of humor (Score:5, Insightful)
I really think that often fraud is hidden under the terms of free speech. The world if when people make a statment of what they claim is fact where forced to take some responsibility for that statment. If SCO came out and said that "We feel that Linux infringes on our copyright and are going to look into it." I would have not problem. But when they make totaly false statments like, "Millions of lines of our code in in Linux". Then they have gone to far.
Re:Germans... (Score:2, Insightful)
Offtopic, I know, but I feel obligated to correct/clarify inaccurate historical references. Call it a character flaw if you want.
Re:Germany has a sense of humor (Score:5, Insightful)
Their customers - it is contract law
Other people - it is general antitrust, slander and copyright law.
That is the distinction and there is nothing funny in it.
Re:Good to see... (Score:5, Insightful)
For instance, arguing that cigarette smoke is linked to higher cancer rates has been proved is specious because the evidence is circumstantial. A good arguer would be able to make the case that the proof is faulty and therefore cigarette smoke is not linked to higher cancer rates.
Re:Good to see... (Score:3, Insightful)
Nowhere, as far as I can tell. In fact, there's not much _to_ violate in Article 1 of the German Basic Law. Article 2 is about liberty, 3 is equality before the law and 4 is freedom of religion. Free speech is article 5.
Re:Gagged..... (Score:3, Insightful)
B) It was not an order to shut up, it was a signed agreement between SCO and Univention representing Linux companies and users.
C) This is a contract, nothing else, and SCO Group GmbH as the german part of SCO is allowed to sign any contract they like (if it displeases the SCO head quarter they can still fire the german CEO).
D) If SCO Group GmbH would have acted as the official voice of SCO in Germany, they would have been liable for damages caused by unfair competition. From the german point of view SCOs claims against IBM look unfounded and only used to deprive Linux companies of their business, because there hasn't been any hard evidence for an actual copyrigth infringment yet, and breach of contract between SCO (U.S.) and IBM (U.S.) shouldn't affect german users of Linux.
E) So it was a wise move for the german SCO branch to keep out of the SCO game in U.S. until either facts are established or SCO takes another turn. With the contract in hand the german SCO branch can tell their U.S. headquarters why they don't risk the SCO game in Germany: Because it's to expensive. 10000 Euros per statement. This is understandable even to SCO in Utah.
Re:Good to see... (Score:0, Insightful)
Re:DEUTSCHLAND! (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Good to see... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Good to see... (Score:2, Insightful)
> "free speech" is very much an American idea
"To speak his thoughts is every freeman's right, in peace and war, in council and in fight."
Homer 700BC
Speaking as an outsider (non-american) it feels like liberties in the US are now amongst the most constrained anywhere.
Re:How does it come? (Score:3, Insightful)
On the down side, the necessity of making compromise may not reduce partisanship. Often times, the other major party is against a new law no matter what it is, just to try and distinguish themselves. Then compromise time comes, and the law is made so complex that no one understands it just so that it *looks* like everyone won. Sometimes, that compromising makes the law in question so ineffective or even damaging that it should never be passed.
For an example, check out the recent "Praxisgebuhr" law in Germany. Before this law, Germans didn't have to pay even a token payment for going to the doctor. As a result, unnecessary costs arose when people went to the doctor for runny noses, hypochondria, and loneliness. Everyone knew it was time for people to bear some token economic consequence for choosing to go to the doctor. Thus was born the "doctor's visit fee". But then it was watered down. Chronically ill don't have to pay the co-pay, and poor people don't have to pay the co-pay. That's fair, you say. But it keeps going until the decision is made that people don't have to pay the co-pay more than once every 4 months. What? Excuse me but unless the purpose is to create a regressive raise in the insurance fees, de-coupling the co-pay from the number of doctor's visits doesn't fulfill the purpose of the law. The law was passed anyways.
Tax law is similar and that creates very real social injustices as only someone above a certain income level can hire someone who actually understands the tax law. This means that poor people pay more taxes than required under the law because the law is to complex to be understood.
There are numerous other problems with the European systems, which seriously weaken their claim to democracy uninfluenced by corporations(party discipline, disproportionate representation at the European level, no class action law suits, etc...).
That's of course not to say that the American system is better. It's not. Both continents have a lot to learn from each other. They both need to STOP being so arrogant and START listening to each other.
Re:Good to see... (Score:5, Insightful)
What many americans don't realise is that there can never be total freedom. In a total free society you would be free to do what you want, and I would be protected from your actions. This is not possible if we want different things. There will always be a tradeoff between your freedom and my protection. We europeans just have a (slightly) different tradeoff.
You and me refere to fictional characters here of course.
Re:Good to see... (Score:5, Insightful)
wow, scary.
free speech means I can make all the baseless claims and lie all I want. What I can't do is yell "fire" in a crowded movie theater (the classic example).
If I break the law (through fraud) -- then fine, arrest me, and I'll go through due process, but to simply restrict speech simply because it may be baseless or a lie is ridiculous and scary.
Right now, I'm sitting on the beach typing this and that later today I'm going to take a long drive in my Ferrari.
See, that was a lie! I'm sitting in my cubicle right now! But according to your definition of free speech, I just committed a crime by lying where I am and what I'm doing.
Re:Good to see... (Score:4, Insightful)
For GPL software, you may f.ex. not redistribute binaries without source. This is obviously a restriction of your freedom. But the FSF believes this to be necessary to protect your other freedoms given to you through the GPL. Others (like the BSD people) disagree.
In Europe, you may not say certain things which help fascism. This is obviously a restriction of your freedom. But the European countries believe this to be necessary to protect your other freedoms given to you through democracy. Others (like the USA) obviously disagree.
Re:Good to see... (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't correct, but typical of contemporary US nationalist meme-thinking. The conceptions of free-speech are somewhat different in Europe and the US but if you think "it is very much an American idea " you are in need of an education.
- The idea of free speech originated first in Europe (maybe elsewhere also). Scores of euro philosophers/political thinkers have argued for free speech long before the US existed, including ancient greeks.
- The european provisions you mention are insignificant. There are far more important factors to free speech, such as good public service media and the conditions of political campaigns.
- The worlds oldest freedom of the press-laws are European (the first one was made law in Sweden, which is in Europe last I checked).
In practice, socio-political debate in west-european countries span a much wider range of ideas than that of the US, and is far more critical of government (power in general). That is the main point of free speech.
Free Speech (Score:2, Insightful)
Thus most adults with "ethics", don't go around saying false or misleading statements because they get an untrustworthy reputation, and in the end they weaken their own position.
Now lets mix the schoolyard with lots of $$$ and political power, and a sprinkle of media manipulation and you've got a receipe for disaster. You must have rules and regulations over free speech, there's no way around it.
Re:Good to see... (Score:2, Insightful)
no big problem (Score:2, Insightful)
> able to make statements in the press, for
> example, that are otherwise verboten
> according to this order.
When they do so a judge has to decide if they did
so in order to tell customers and users or not. (Intentions matter!). The German equivalent of free speech, that is "Meinungsfreiheit" (freedom of opinion) holds in Germany. That is they can still say their opinions. But yelling at the press or making statements intended to make people buy licences is not protected.
Re:Good to see... (Score:5, Insightful)
And what is "free speech" if your actors cannot give their personal opinions about current events when accepting awards?
The kinds of comments you refer to are the entertainment industry equivalent of flamebait or offtopic digressions (like this one, I'm afraid). Such comments add nothing of value to the debate over current events - does skill at acting really confer any special sagacity about foreign policy? Is the opinion being expressed going to be in any way better informed than a soundbite on the issue from the janitor who sweeps the floors after the awards ceremony is over would be?
Also, such offtopic and inappropriate comments from actors open up a can of worms. Should they be able to make controversial comments that generate lots of backlash against the studios they work for? What if the speech is so controversial it would generally be viewed as insensetive, racist, or hate speech? If some spouting of political comments is good and other types would be bad, what political correctness censoring authority determines how free speech should really be?
Famous people already have a much louder voice for their personal opinion than their expertise on the matters being discussed would merit. They can give interviews, issue press releases, and often testify before congress about topic they have no particular knowledge about. Does having once played a doctor really make someone an expert on health care policy? Newspaper columnists don't go around claiming their political commentaries entitle them to a role in a film, why do entertainers think being good at acting makes their political opinions worth listening to?
Germany (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:How does it come? (Score:3, Insightful)
Since you mention the doctor fees, well, it's actually a good example of why the process does work for the people. Some things, like making very poor people pay extra fees would have been very unpopular, so they got changed. Seems like democracy at work to me.
It's not perfect, but let's put it like this: you have to choose between two evils:
(A) Bending over to do what will please the voters, even if it's a stupidity and/or waters down the law, or
(B) Bending over to do what will please the corporate sponsors.
Basically I'll take A over B any time. That's what the government is supposed to do in a democracy, in the first place. That's what "democracy" even means.
Class action lawsuits are also less necessary here in the first place, since most stuff is supposed to be handled by the government and its agencies, rather than feeding hordes of lawyers and mangling everything through courts. Not necessarily saying it's a better system. It's just the way it works here, and so far it worked well enough.
It's not bending over to serve the corporations. Au contraire, it's a uniform and centralized (and bureaucratic) way of dealing with them.
E.g., we actually have laws and government agencies that represent the consumers' rights. If you've been sold snake oil, or otherwise were taken advantage of by a company, you can go to them and they _will_ take action. You don't need to get 10,000 people together and give 90% of the proceeds to the lawyers. The government will do the work for you. It's probably not perfect, but it works.
Tax law, well, I wouldn't call it that much of an injustice. Taxes rise exponentially with income, and go all the way up. Whatever loopholes those tax experts will find, still won't really make the rich pay less taxes than the poor.
Re:Good to see... (Score:5, Insightful)
Denmark, for instance, has the worlds ONLY state funded Nazi radio station. Why? Because the legislation that allows for publicly funded radiostations set out some guidelines that the Nazi station lives up to, namely public service (like news etc).
I have absolutely no problem with that. Why? Because if I want freedom of speech, it should also cover the speech I find deeply appaling! If it doesn't, how can it be free?
And our politicians? Well, they want to ban it. But they can't do it by law, as they haven't broken any laws yet. When they try to remove funding from the station by tweaking the law, they end up closing fifty other stations as well, so that doesn't work.
And damnit - I wish they'd keep their fucking hands of them! Not because I like Nazis - I don't like their view of the world, but because it is so much easier keeping them in check, when they're out in the open and you can ridicule them instead.
Nazis here like marching on various occasions. They're allowed to, it's quite legal. So how do you stop them? By having citizens organize a fundraiser. "We will donate ?150 to various jewish organisations [like holocaust center] for every km the nazis march." That took the air right out of their balloon
THAT'S how you use free speech to impede dangerous speech
IMHO
Re:How does it come? (Score:3, Insightful)
For example, it would probably be illegal in the United States for Supermarket Chain A to run an ad that says "Supermarket Chain B's food is poisoned!".
However, it would probably have to be a case where speech is very obviously used for such purposes. SCO hasn't yet reached this point.
The usual disclaimers apply.
Re:Good ol' Germans! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Good to see... (Score:3, Insightful)
In a way that's just what SCO was doing: Spreading FUD by claiming that there were lawsuits coming when in reality there wasn't any base to that. That's not so different from yelling "fire" in a theatre.
Right now, I'm sitting on the beach typing this and that later today I'm going to take a long drive in my Ferrari.
See, that was a lie! I'm sitting in my cubicle right now! But according to your definition of free speech, I just committed a crime by lying where I am and what I'm doing.
Cut me some slack here, okay? I admit that my wording there wasn't very exact. (IANAL, and neither is English my first language.)
I was not referring to personal conversation, I was referring to libel and slander. If you're lying about your whereabouts, that's not a crime, of course, and it never should be. (Technically, SCO didn't commit crimes, either - they're not being punished for what they said, they're only not allowed to repeat it unless they can beef it up with facts.) But if you're publicly making wrong accusations against someone else, that person should be able to stop you from making those accusations.
Again: Imagine I had a big newspaper and I had it in for you: Would you like me to be able to print big headlines with false accusations against you again and again with no way to stop me? (Fining won't help much - my imaginary self would have enough money to pay that without a wink.)
Or if you had a company and I was a bigger competitor routing claims to the media that your prooduct was somehow defective or dangerous. Shouldn't there be a way to stop me from doing that?
Note that the court order in the article wasn't simply given out of a whim - it was after fact checking that the court concluded that there wasn't enough to back those claims but that they had the potential to hurt SCO's competition.
I agree that it's difficult where to draw the line there, again mainly because IANAL, but free speech does not mean that you're powerless against efficient slanderers. There should be a way to say: "Either give me some proof or shut up."
Baumi
Unfair : Re:Finally (Score:2, Insightful)
At the very top of the "article". I.e. Above the Headline it says
"Press Release Source: The SCO Group, Inc".
Yahoo.com makes it a point to publish unedited, any press release sent to it by "qualified entities". Companies listed on the US Stock exchange automatically qualify.
Latter on they may or may publish an article on the subject that dose nothing more than rephrase the press release. At that point you can fairly criticize them. Not now and not on this.
PS: Real Journalists (I.e. Groklaw) Will in all likelihood dig into this story to find out where the relationships run, who owns who and perhaps even what was paid and in what direction the payments went. Hell they might even seek to find out what the makeup of this companies infrastructure is.
Re:Germany has a sense of humor (Score:3, Insightful)
SCO is infringing on certain business standards of communication policy. In germany this is seen as an anti-competitive offence and I believe the rule is good as we see it works while in the US further rumor and misinformation is spread and reported by the press.