decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
SCO Backs Off in Germany - Out-of-Court Settlement with Univention Reported
Monday, March 01 2004 @ 02:56 AM EST

We have news from Germany. It seems, according to Computerwoche, 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:

1) SCO Group GmbH (German branch of SCO) has agreed not to allege any more that Linux contains SCO's unlawfully acquired intellectual property.

2) The settlement also forbids SCO from claiming that if end users are running Linux they might be liable for breaches of SCO's intellectual property.

3) Also they cannot say that Linux is an unauthorized derivative of Unix.

4) Finally SCO Group GmbH is prohibited to threaten to sue Linux users unless they bought SCO Linux or Caldera Linux.

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:

"Die SCO Group GmbH wird danach im geschäftlichen Verkehr, also gegenüber Kunden und Anwendern, künftig nicht mehr behaupten, dass Linux-Betriebssysteme unrechtmäßig erworbenes geistiges Eigentum von SCO Unix beinhalten. Der Vergleich verbietet es SCO ferner zu behaupten, dass Endanwender, wenn sie Linux einsetzen, für die damit verbundenen Schutzverletzungen der SCO Intellectual Properties haftbar gemacht werden können. Auch die Behauptung, Linux sei ein nicht autorisiertes Derivat von Unix, ist nicht mehr statthaft. Last, but not least, darf die SCO Group GmbH nicht mehr behaupten, Käufer von Linux-Betriebssystemen hätten eine Strafverfolgung zu befürchten, es sei denn, es handelte sich bei den gekauften Betriebssystemen um SCO Linux oder Caldera Linux. . . .

"Nach diesem wird SCO auch nicht mehr öffentlich behaupten, Beweise für die Urheberrechtsverletzung würden demnächst vorgelegt. Ausnahme: Sollten diese Beweise innerhalb eines Monats nach diesem Vergleich vorgelegt werden, kann die SCO Group GmbH solch eine Behauptung weiter veröffentlichen."

Update: Here's the legal document [PDF], in German, listing the things agreed to by SCO, as to what it could no longer say.


  


SCO Backs Off in Germany - Out-of-Court Settlement with Univention Reported | 193 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Come on Australia
Authored by: revoltn on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 04:53 AM EST
As an Australian, I certainly hope that the ACCC looks at this result and at
least follows suit, if not going further.

Let's just see if the SCOX stock is going to go up, though :)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Typo
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 04:59 AM EST
The name of the magazine is "Computerwoche", not
"Computerworld".

Jens Maurer

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Typo - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 05:08 AM EST
    • Typo - Authored by: DaveWalley on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 05:14 AM EST
      • [OT]: Walt/Welt - Authored by: red floyd on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 11:15 AM EST
      • Typo (joking) - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 06:24 PM EST
      • Typo - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 12:07 AM EST
    • Typo - Authored by: Captain on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 05:16 AM EST
      • Typo - Authored by: TerryL on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 06:35 AM EST
        • Typo - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 08:14 AM EST
          • Typo - Authored by: shayne on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 08:51 AM EST
            • Typo - Authored by: TerryL on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 10:16 AM EST
    • Typo - Authored by: Captain on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 05:18 AM EST
      • Typo - Authored by: old joe on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 08:56 AM EST
  • Another Typo - Authored by: FrankH on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 06:40 AM EST
Confirmation Number 4
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 05:02 AM EST
I am from Austria (NOT AUSTRALIA), south of Germany, our language is german, and
from the snippets given above I can confirm that the ranslation of the fourth
paragraph is correct.

I am too lazy to create an account, but I am Gerald anyway

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Backs Off in Germany - Out-of-Court Settlement with Univention Reported
Authored by: Greebo on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 05:06 AM EST
Hi,

Someone beat me to the first comment!

You can Google the article here to make the translation a bit more readable. It's quite good.

So, at last someone has had the sense to gag SCO. It's such a shame that the US legal system seems incapable of doing the same thing - although at least the US systems gives Darl enough rope to hang himself.

Lets hope other countries - Australia inparticularly - follow suit.

Cheers,

Greebo

---
-----------------------------------------< br /> Recent Linux Convert and Scared Cat Owner

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Backs Off in Germany - Out-of-Court Settlement with Univention Reported
Authored by: timthoe on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 05:12 AM EST
My guess is is that the settlement could not take away SCO's right to sue their

own customers for example breach of contract. However they would still be
barred from claiming what they now cannot claim against all other people.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Backs Off in Germany - Out-of-Court Settlement with Univention Reported
Authored by: jmc on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 05:13 AM EST

Finally SCO Group GmbH is prohibited to threaten to sue Linux users unless they bought SCO Linux or Caldera Linux.

That seems to me to be the opposite way round from the Oz complaint to the ACCC which focused specifically on peoplel who'd got Linux from SCO. Must make it hard for SCO people working out which lies they can tell where.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Backs Off in Germany - Out-of-Court Settlement with Univention Reported
Authored by: autosepha on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 05:18 AM EST
Number 4) should be translated more precisely to prohibit SCO Group GmbH to claim that Linux users would have to face criminal prosecution ("Strafverfolgung"). The rest of the corresponding german text is ambigous 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. The later interpretation appears sensible to me (though it might be a good idea from SCO's point of view to threaten their own customers).

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Backs Off in Germany - Out-of-Court Settlement with Univention Reported
Authored by: Thorsten on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 05:30 AM EST
IMHO, it is even simpler.

The point of such preliminary injunctions (finalised now by the
out-of-court settlement) is (as far as I understand) to prevent one
company to spread FUD with the aim to stop customers of another
company from buying the competition's product.

So, SCO is prohibited from claiming that buyers of Linux distributions
other than their own would be liable to pay license fees. But the
injunction does not prohibit them from making any statement
regarding their own customers. Whether their own customers *are*
liable to pay fees is a completely different question (as far as the
injunction is concerned).

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Backs Off in Germany - Out-of-Court Settlement with Univention Reported
Authored by: bcoughlan on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 05:36 AM EST

IANAL and may me totaly wrong, but I think I can explain why SCO may sue/threaten their own customers:

Univention had already got an 'einstweilige Anordnung' (interim ruling) on 2003-05-28. Now they settled the actual suit.

I suppose they sued over 'wetbewerbswiedriges Verhalten', which might be translatet as behavior hindering/preventing competition and seems to have it's American equivalent in 'unfair competition'. What they asked for (and got) is that SCO may not interfere with the buisness of Univention by intimidating/sueing it's cutomers.

They can go on abusin their own customers because that doesn't interfere with Univention's buisness. Therefore Univention would have nether legal cause nor standing to make them stop it.

PS: Yes, my spelling is dreadfull. If you find mistakes you may keep them.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Surely?!!
Authored by: Nick_UK on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 05:39 AM EST
Surely that's it for SCO and Linux???

(if) They have say this and they are not allowed to do it - and agreed to this
OUTSIDE court - they have effectively said "Yep, we lose".

Now, whether this is in Germany, England, Timbuktu or wherever, they have AGREED
to this in an out of court settlement.

I can't see how any court in the World would now support their claims re Linux.

Nick

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Backs Off in Germany - Out-of-Court Settlement with Univention Reported
Authored by: jlueters on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 06:09 AM EST
PJ, your scepticism about point 4 is right.
The meaning in the "computerwoche" article is different.

The SCO claim is
"Linux buyers have to fear criminal prosecution, except those who have
bought SCO products."

SCO is not allowed to state this in public.

German:
" Last, but not least, darf die SCO Group GmbH nicht mehr behaupten, Käufer
von Linux-Betriebssystemen hätten eine Strafverfolgung zu befürchten, es sei
denn, es handelte sich bei den gekauften Betriebssystemen um SCO Linux oder
Caldera Linux. "
Translation:
"Last, but not least the SCO Group GmbH is not allowed to state that
Linux-OS buyers have to fear criminal prosecution, execpt those who have bought
the operating system SCO Linux or Caldera Linux"


Jürgen

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Backs Off in Germany - Out-of-Court Settlement with Univention Reported
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 06:17 AM EST
They can still sue their own customers, that would be a great incentive to pay.

I really think Darl is giving up too easy. After all Germany have signed the
Bern convention and should have copyright laws similar to the US one. Darl had
evidence that millions of lines of code was copied. The share holders should sue
him, imagine giving away virtually all of their investment. This is highly
irresponsible. .

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Backs Off in Germany - Out-of-Court Settlement with Univention Reported
Authored by: insensitive clod on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 07:20 AM EST
"Nach diesem wird SCO auch nicht mehr öffentlich behaupten, Beweise für die Urheberrechtsverletzung würden demnächst vorgelegt. Ausnahme: Sollten diese Beweise innerhalb eines Monats nach diesem Vergleich vorgelegt werden, kann die SCO Group GmbH solch eine Behauptung weiter veröffentlichen."

From now on, SCO will not state publicly that proof of infringement on intellectual property rights will be presented. Exception: When such proof is presented within a month after this settlement, SCO can make such a statement publicly.

Disclaimer: Not native German nor English speaker, but I gave it a shot..

---
Lemmings vs Penguins

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Backs Off in Germany - Out-of-Court Settlement with Univention Reported
Authored by: rongage on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 07:36 AM EST
Just for giggles, someone in Germany should invite Darl to speak at some
university over there.



---
Ron Gage - Linux Consultant
LPI1, MCP, A+, NET+
Pontiac, Michigan

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Backs Off in Germany - Out-of-Court Settlement with Univention Reported
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 07:57 AM EST
Original settlement (in German):
http://www.univention.de/uni_pdf_dokumente/verfuegung.pdf
Btw it mentions neither SCO Linux nor Caldera Linux.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Backs Off in Germany - Out-of-Court Settlement with Univention Reported
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 08:43 AM EST
Hi,

i am from germany and I think the translation of paragraph 4 is not entirely
right.

SCO says they may sue any linux user if he not buys Caldera Linux.

They are not allowed to say this anymore.

If you translate paragraph 4 word by word to german it exactly means that, that
may be the reason that most people think its right.

Thomas

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Backs Off in Germany - Out-of-Court Settlement with Univention Reported
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 09:08 AM EST
There was a similar case Tarent vs. SCO Germany.

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 für den Staatsanwalt, man sollte
Strafanzeigen wegen Betruges stellen. Leider können wir das in Deutschland
nicht. Der Vorteil einer Strafanzeige liegt darin, dass ein Staatsanwalt die
Untersuchung übernimmt und wir nichts zahlen müssen. Im Europäischen Ausland
sollten wir gemeinsam mit befreundeten Organisationen entsprechende
Strafanzeigen wegen Betruges stellen.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Backs Off in Germany - Out-of-Court Settlement with Univention Reported
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 09:28 AM EST
SCO USA and SCO Germany are different legal entities. SCO Germany can only enter
into agreements binding for SCO Germany. I don't see how this changes anything
for the US lawsuits -- except public perception.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Backs Off in Germany - Out-of-Court Settlement with Univention Reported
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 09:35 AM EST
The translation is content correct.

Imagine only being able to sue your own clients!

This settlement does look like something a German lawyer would dream up, i.e.
straight to the point. "Put up or shut up". More legal systems should
be run this way.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Backs Off in Germany - Out-of-Court Settlement with Univention Reported
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 09:46 AM EST

Sorry (4) has been translated wrong: It DOESN'T say that
SCO can only sue its own customers, BUT IT SAYS (in the
German text) that SCO cannot threaten any Linux customers
with being sued lest they have bought their distro from
SCO.

"es sei denn, es handelte sich bei den gekauften Betriebssystemen um SCO
Linux oder Caldera Linux"

is still subordinate clause to "... behaupten", not
an exception.

Hope I'm putting that clearly enough.

Regards -- Markus

[ Reply to This | # ]

Another good reason *not* to buy the licensing from SCO
Authored by: SwedChef on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 09:57 AM EST
Since they now cannot, at least in Germany, sue anyone but their own customers,
it seems logical that to avoid being sued by SCO the easiest thing to do is to
not buy any products from them. :)

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Backs Off in Germany - Out-of-Court Settlement with Univention Reported
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 10:07 AM EST
It seems to me that there are a number of questions
I'd like answered, preferably by someone who is EU-aware.

(1) In how many of the 15 EU countries is SCO separately
incorporated?

(2) In those EU countries in which SCO is *not* separately
incorporated, what is the carry-over of the German
agreement/settlement?

(3) In those EU countries in which SCO *is* separately
incorporated, what would be entailed in going to court to
make the German settlement enforceable in that country?

(4) What would be entailed in taking the German settlement
to the EU in Brussels or to the WTO?

Peter H. Salus

[ Reply to This | # ]

Translation-Problem
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 10:44 AM EST
Last, but not least, darf die SCO Group GmbH nicht mehr behaupten, Käufer von Linux-Betriebssystemen hätten eine Strafverfolgung zu befürchten, es sei denn, es handelte sich bei den gekauften Betriebssystemen um SCO Linux oder Caldera Linux. . . .

Can have two meanings. The one stated above "may not sue users, except buyers of Caldera or SCO".

Or: "Last but not least, the SCO-Group is not allowed to state, that buyers of Linux Operating Systems OTHER THAN SCO Linux or Caldera Linux, might have to fear criminal persecution".

The "except" in this case most probably refers to the Users, not to SCO.

Cheers, Seegras

[ Reply to This | # ]

O.T. SCOX has a new customer
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 10:47 AM EST
in Texas for a SCOSource licence
http://www.linuxelectrons.com/article.php?story=20040301080315908
posted on google
morven24

[ Reply to This | # ]

Translation still not exact
Authored by: wgabi on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 11:04 AM EST
The translations is not giving the exact meaning of the statement. If a customer
bought Linux from SCO/Caldera but is not using it, SCO can not state to
prosecute them.

German:
" Last, but not least, darf die SCO Group GmbH nicht mehr behaupten,
Käufer
von Linux-Betriebssystemen hätten eine Strafverfolgung zu befürchten, es sei
denn, es handelte sich bei den gekauften Betriebssystemen um SCO Linux oder
Caldera Linux. "
Translation:
"Last, but not least the SCO Group GmbH is not allowed to state that
Linux-OS buyers have to fear criminal prosecution,
unless the purchased operating stystem is SCO Linux or Caldera Linux"

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Backs Off in Germany - Out-of-Court Settlement with Univention Reported
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 11:09 AM EST
Regarding SCO's ability to sue its customers (statement 4)...
It seems this is a simple as allowing SCO to sue those people with whom it has a
legal agreement or contract. Everyone who purchased one of their products has a
license agreement detailing how they can use the product and SCO can sue, or
threaten to sue, under that agreement.
They key point here is that SCO is forbidden to threaten suit against those
people with whom it does not have an established contract.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Unlawfully Acquired
Authored by: red floyd on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 11:12 AM EST
I suspect it was misphrased, but...

"SCO's unlawfully acquired intellectual property"

Gave me a much-needed Monday morning laugh.

Thanks!

---
The only reason we retain the rights we have is because people *JUST LIKE US*
died to preserve those rights.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Translate the German statute?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 11:25 AM EST
I would REALLY like to have an English translation of the German statute or
statutes that produced this settlement, not just a translation of the settlement
itself.

We badly need this law in the U.S., and our poor members of Congress will only
pay attention to what is spoon-fed to them.

[ Reply to This | # ]

off topic ev1servers.net signs sco ip license
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 11:44 AM EST
Sorry about the off-topic post:
Has anyone contacted ev1servers.net to verify that they did in fact purchase a
sco license as reported here:

http://linuxtoday.com/it_management/2004030101326NWCDMR
and here:
http://www.linuxelectrons.com/article.php?story=20040301080315908

I am just really surprised and would like to know if it is true before I react.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Backs Off in Germany - Out-of-Court Settlement with Univention Reported
Authored by: autosepha on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 11:54 AM EST
Univention has now made available the full text of the settlement online:
http://www.univention.de/uni_pdf_dokumente/sco_vergleich.pdf

Quiet unbelievable but the ambiguity of number 4) is also in the original
settlement's text. Blame it on their lawyers.

This settlement is not a masterpiece, anyway. It is even ambiguous whether the
finishing part of number 1 of the settlement ("sofern dies nicht erweislich
wahr ist") applies to all four items (a. - d.) or only to lit. d. That
could be essential as this phrase gives an exception if SCO's assertions are
proven to be correct.

The way I understand this settlement this exception applies to all items. That
means the settlement is not an admission from SCO that the prohibited claims are
uncorrect but merely the pledge that they won't repeat these claims until they
can prove them. Nothing new, IMO.

[ Reply to This | # ]

my take on part 4
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 12:14 PM EST
My reading of the 4th item was that they can no longer threaten, "If you
use Linux, we're going to sue you, unless you buy our stuff." (In other
words, buy our license or else.)

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Backs Off in Germany - Out-of-Court Settlement with Univention Reported
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 12:45 PM EST
Attempted translation of http://www.univention.de/aktuell/aktuell_5.html

Bremen March 01, 2004 - The Univenention Corporation from Bremen and the SCO corporation (herafter referred to as SCO) have completed a settlement(1) whose contents Univention is making public with this statement.

Following this settlement, SCO binds itself, among other things, not to claim the following:

  • That linux operating systems contain illegally aquired SCO intellectual property (3).
  • That end users (in the use of linux) can be made liable for protection infringements of "SCO Intellectual Protperties."
  • That Linux is a unauthorized derivative of Unix
  • That buyers of linux operating systems would have to fear punitive actions.

Moreover, in the future, SCO will not claim that evidence for copyright infringement will be presented soon, unless this evidence is presented to Univision within one month of the announcement.

(1)I'm not sure if "Vergleich" which translates directly to comparison is also means settlement.
(2)"Verpflichtet" is "assumes the duty to", the phrasing of this sentence does not translate well.
(3)'geistiges Eigentum' translates directly to 'spiritual property' instead of intellectual property

Notably, the time line for presenting evidence after a claim is 30 days after the claim that evidence will be produced, not 30 days after the settlement.

It's also somewhat interesting that "SCO Intellectual Properties" is munged into the german when "Geistiges Eigentum" which seems to be the german expression for the same concept is used on a previous line. Further reading of the PDF suggests that this allso occurs in the settlement.

I certainly don't know enough legalese (English or German) to translate the PDF proper (although it is short), but the announcement seems to represent the settlement accurately.

[ Reply to This | # ]

That's what it means
Authored by: m_si_M on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 01:04 PM EST
I downloaded the PDF from Univention's site. The reason for the confusion is
simply the dreadful German, German lawyers are notorius for.
You have to read it this way:
SCO will not say the following in the future: "Someone who bought a Linux
box will be sued, *unless* he bought one of SCO's/Caldera's boxes".
So they are not allowed to sue their own customers for any of the reasons
mentioned.

Really dreadful German...

C.S.

[ Reply to This | # ]

part 4
Authored by: Oninoshiko on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 01:24 PM EST
to be honest, PJ, part 4 does make sence, if you conisder that this action is
being pushed by german companies who's intrest is there own customers. they dont
care id SCOG-GmbH sues their own clients, indeed it would be another reason to
not do bussness with SCOG-GmbH

Oninoshiko

[ Reply to This | # ]

This is an "unfair competition" case
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 03:04 PM EST
This whole case is not about freedom of speech as some people over at
slashdot suggest, and it is not about consumer protection, it is about unfair
competition.

If I claim that I will sue your customers, then your customers might buy
somewhere else in order not to be sued. If I claim that I will sue your
customers without any intention of doing so, and without any reasonable
evidence that there is anything to sue about, then I am damaging your
business in an unfair way, and that is unfair competition and illegal in
Germany.

That is why SCO is not allowed to threaten Redhat's customers or SuSEs
customer or anyone elses customers, because it would unfairly damage those
companies' business. But there is nothing to stop SCO from threatening their
own customers: If SCO whishes to damage their own business by threatening
to sue their customers, then they are absolutely free to do so. That is why
they are not allowed to make threats against any Linux users except those
who bought Linux from SCO.

Another point is that SCO is still allowed to actually sue whoever they want to

sue. Gather evidence, write the necessary papers, go to the court. Nothing to
stop them. The only thing they are not allowed to do is making empty
threats. But as they don't actually have a leg to stand on, they will just end
up
paying the court cost, their own lawyers and the defendents' lawyers if they
sue, so good luck.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Best description - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 06:07 AM EST
Puzzling insight
Authored by: haegarth on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 03:11 PM EST
Well, here's SCO agreeing to a settlement that prevents them, literally, from
using SCOSpeak in Germany. They woulDn#t have accepted that settlement if they
assumed that any facts they might present would prevail at court, would they?
Or is this due to the fact that in the German legal system one may be sued based
on facts while the US legal system allows for somebody being sued because of an
idea of some infringement.

Sorry, but I don't get that. I'm from Germany, and though I'm in the IT business
I have been taught some legal principles years ago (still far from being a
laywyer), so I thought I would be able to at least understand the underpinnings
of our legal system to a certain extent.

Could anybody possibly explain why SCO can't simply get the same treatment in
the US? Far from intending to offend anybody (especially not the 'real' lawyers
who might visit groklaw), but sometimes it seems to me that the US legal system
doesn't serve the general public, but is instead set up to feed countless
lawyers in never ending lawsuits, which are being recorded on US legal paper
made out of thousands of trees simply because legalese is so voluminous?


---
Where do you want to SCO today?

[ Reply to This | # ]

The univention ./. SCO settlement as text
Authored by: gakulev on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 03:44 PM EST
Here is the text of the settlement from univentions web
page. The ugliness of my english translation is second only
to the original :->

Gakulev

--
May the source be with you.

Between

univention_GmbH, represented by the Managing Director Peter Ganten,
Fahrenheitstrasse 1, 28359 Bremen

- subsequently called "univention" -

legal representative: Counsel Dr. Dietrich Weber-Steinhaus, Bremen

and

The SCO Group GmbH, represented by the Managing Directors Johannes Bayer,
Robert Kiry Bench and Mike Olsen, Norsk-Data-Strasse 6, 61352 Bad Homburg

- subsequently called "SCO" -

legal representative: Counsel Dr. Ulrich Lohmann, Munich

the following

settlement

is reached:


1.
SCO commits itself to univention to refrain in future from maintaining or
disseminating the assertion that

a. Linux operating systems contain unlawfully acquired intellectual
property from SCO UNIX (R) and/or

b. end users, if they use Linux, could be held liable for the violations of
SCO intellectual properties related thereunto and/or

c. Linux is an unauthorized derivative of Unix and/or

d. buyers of Linux operating systems had to fear criminal prosecution,
unless the purchased operating systems are SCO Linux or Caldera Linux,

if this is not demonstrably true.

---- pagebreak -----

2.
SCO makes clear that it will not publicly claim that proofs for copyright
violation would be provided soon, unless they are provided to univention within
one month from such announcement.

3.
SCO further commits itself to pay to univention for each instance of future
violation of the above obligations a penalty for breach of contract to the
amount of EUR 10.000,00.

4.
Counsel Dr. Weber-Steinhaus relinquishes the rights from the preliminary
injunction of the Bremen district court of 28/05/2004. SCO accepts this
abandonment and refrains from pursuing the lifting of the above mentioned court
order.


Bremen, 16/02/2004 Munich, 18/02/2004

signed by signed by
Counsel Dr. Dietrich Weber-Steinhaus Counsel Dr. Ulrich Lohmann
for univention_GmbH for The SCO Group GmbH



Here is the german original:
Zwischen

univention_GmbH, vertreten durch den Geschaeftsfuehrer Peter Ganten,
Fahrenheitstrasse 1, 28359 Bremen

- nachfolgend "univention" genannt -

Verfahrensbevollmaechtigter: Rechtsanwalt Dr. Dietrich Weber-Steinhaus, Bremen

und

The SCO Group GmbH, vertreten durch die Geschaeftsfuehrer Johannes Bayer, Robert
Kiry Bench und Mike Olsen, Norsk-Data-Strasse 6, 61352 Bad Homburg

- nachfolgend "SCO" genannt -

Verfahrensbevollmaechtigter: Rechtsanwalt Dr. Ulrich Lohmann, Muenchen

wird folgender

Vergleich

geschlossen:

1.
SCO verpflichtet sich gegenueber univention, es kuenftig zu unterlassen, im
geschaeftlichen Verkehr die Behauptung aufzustellen oder zu verbreiten, dass

a. Linux-Betriebssysteme unrechtmaessig erworbenes geistiges Eigentum von
SCO UNIX (R) beinhalten, und/oder

b. Endanwender, wenn sie Linux einsetzen, fuer die damit verbundenen
Schutzverletzungen der SCO Intellectual Properties haftbar gemacht werden
koennten, und/oder

c. Linux ein nicht autorisiertes Derivat von Unix sei, und/oder

d. Kaeufer von Linux-Betriebssystemen Strafverfolgung zu befuerchten
haetten, es sei denn, es handele sich bei den gekauften Betriebssystemen um
SCO Linux oder Caldera Linux,

sofern dies nicht erweislich wahr ist.

----- Pagebreak -----

2.
SCO stellt klar, dass sie auch nicht oeffentlich behaupten wird, Beweise fuer
die Urheberrechtsverletzung wuerden demnaechst vorgelegt, es sei denn, diese
werden binnen Monatsfrist nach dieser Ankuendigung univention vorgelegt.

3.
SCO verpflichtet sich ferner, fuer jeden Fall zukuenftiger Zuwiderhandlung gegen
die obige Verpflichtungen an univention eine Vertragsstrafe in Hoehe von UR
10.000,00 zu entrichten.

4.
Rechtsanwalt Dr. Weber-Steinhaus verzichtet auf die Rechte aus der einstweiligen
Verfuegung des Landgerichts Bremen vom 28.05.2003. SCO nimmt diesen Verzicht an
und verzichtet darauf, die Aufhebung der oben genannten Verfuegung zu
betreiben.

Bremen, den 16.02.2004 Muenchen, den 18.02.2004

unterzeichnet durch unterzeichnet durch
RA Dr. Dietrich Weber-Steinhaus RA Dr. Ulrich Lohmann
fuer univention_GmbH fuer The SCO Group GmbH


[ Reply to This | # ]

translation of #4 from SCO Germany settlement
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 04:25 PM EST
I think the meaning of

"SCO Group GmbH is prohibited to threaten to sue Linux users unless they
bought SCO Linux or Caldera Linux."

could be restated

"SCO can't make the threat, 'If you use Linux, then unless you have bought
SCO or Caldera, we will sue you.'"

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Backs Off in Germany - Out-of-Court Settlement with Univention Reported
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 06:05 PM EST
Actually, the translation goes like this...

"Last, but not least, darf die SCO Group GmbH nicht mehr behaupten, Käufer
von Linux-Betriebssystemen hätten eine Strafverfolgung zu befürchten, es sei
denn, es handelte sich bei den gekauften Betriebssystemen um SCO Linux oder
Caldera Linux. . . . "

What they are saying is "The SCO Group may no longer claim that legal
action may be taken against Linux-owners who did not purchase SCO Linux or
Caldera Linux"

Yes my friends, German is tricky!

To rephrase, SCO may no longer claim that only SCO Linux and Caldera Linux are
legal versions of Linux.

Hope that clears things up...

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Backs Off in Germany - Out-of-Court Settlement with Univention Reported
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 07:26 PM EST
Correction needed.
From last year, the fine was 100,000 euros or $250,000 US. So what with the
reduce fines.

And can the agreement be binding to all those those purchased SuSE Linux before
Novell purchase SuSE. Such as SuSE Linux version 6.x, 7.x, 8.x, 9.0 .

And finally can this agreement be used in the rest of the world to stop SCO from
going after the end-user.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Backs Off in Germany - Out-of-Court Settlement with Univention Reported
Authored by: kjs on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 08:16 PM EST
The German text says that they would have never been able to sue buyers of their
distrubution but in addition they can't thread those using distributions from
others unless they can proof it contains their IP!

Nevertheless, they won't have a chance in Germany anyhow as according to German
law they gave all their rights away by selling a distro under GPL. Even if there
would have been some of their code in there illegally it would not matter. As a
business it's their problem if they don't check what they distribute. Opposite
to the US stupidity isn't supported by German courts......

Juergen

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • unfair - Authored by: m_si_M on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 08:32 PM EST
SCO Backs Off in Germany - Out-of-Court Settlement with Univention Reported
Authored by: Nick Bridge on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 12:31 AM EST
IMHO SCO may claim it has the right to sue it's own customers of copyright
infringement simple because they may have a case.

After all, if a SCO customer started duplicating CDs of SCO software, that would
most definitely be an offense, and therefore SCO would have the right to claim
such in the court of public opinion.

This ruling simply ensures that SCO doesn't claim that they can sue you for
copying, for example, Red Hat CDs.

If you bought GNU/Linux from SCO Group, or it's predecessor, you are only in
danger of doing anything outside the license you already have - which just so
happens to be the GPL!

My opinion is not worth the ether the bits are imprinted on - IANAL. I Am Not
Even Vaguelly Sane (IANEVS), I Have No Infinging Code (IHNIC). If You Take This
Comment As Legal Advise Then You Are Also Insane (IYTTCALATYAAI)

[ Reply to This | # ]

But they can actually sue?
Authored by: mobrien_12 on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 01:30 AM EST
As I read it, this is an anti-FUD settlement. SCO can still sue Linux users in
Germany, just not threaten them. Am I wrong?

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Backs Off in Germany - Translation problem
Authored by: gnasch on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 04:08 AM EST
your translation is in fact incorrect:

...darf die SCO Group GmbH nicht mehr behaupten, Käufer von
Linux-Betriebssystemen hätten eine Strafverfolgung zu befürchten, es sei denn,
es handelte sich bei den gekauften Betriebssystemen um SCO Linux oder Caldera
Linux. . . .

This is a 'Schachtelsatz', multiple sentences pressed into one. It has to be
unwound like this:

-SCO Group must not pretend any longer that

-buyers of Linux-OS's must fear prosecution unless they
bougth their linux from SCO or Caldera.

please note that:
'Strafverfolgung' is (criminal) prosecution,
done by the state.

Hope this makes the thing clearer.

gnasch

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Backs Off in Germany - Out-of-Court Settlement with Univention Reported
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 05:59 AM EST
These settlements usually remain confidential.

So this looks like the worst decision SCO could have gotten in a court trial and
on top of it, Univention can talk about it.

Just think about the position SCO must have been in to sign a settlement like
this.

They basically did everything to avoid trial over their claims. If they had any
proof, would they have done it?

Of course, a court order stating that they have nothing would have been far
worse than any settlement.

Regards
Klaus

[ Reply to This | # ]

Univention General Manager Comments on Settlement
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 12:12 PM EST
Univention, that German company which had stopped SCO Germany from spreading allegations answered my email. I had asked Univention press contact how Univention is commenting that out of court settlement. Here is their reply which was labelled as "original answer of Peter H. Ganten, general manager of Univention":
Univention is stating that SCO sees no legal chance in Germany to continue to spread those allegations which they had spread in Germany before and are still spreading abroad.

In particular we are glad that SCO apparently sees no chance to win a legal battle in Germany. Insofar Univention is hoping to have restored predictability of legal decisions for Linux users in Germany.

Univention understands that Germany isn't the main battle field. And we also know that harm for the German Linux marketplace is still inflicted by allegations published by SCO in the United States and elsewhere.

Insofar is it the hope of Univention that US American courts will soon reach similar results.

Univention press release (German) here

Enjoy!

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Backs Off in Germany - Out-of-Court Settlement with Univention Reported
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 12:29 PM EST
Maybe I am reading this wrong, but it seems like this ruling is applying only to
SCO Germany (SCO GmbH). The fourth provision about not making the statement
unless GmbH bought out SCO seems to be an indication that GmbH does not have the
standing to sue on behalf of another corporation (SCO).

Its hard to tell, because it is a translation regarding a foreign judicial
system. Not that their system is wrong, but their judicial system and
legislatures handle these types of issues differently than what I am used to
seeing.

Chris F from San Diego

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Backs Off in Germany - Out-of-Court Settlement with Univention Reported
Authored by: okami on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 10:25 AM EST
Sorry if this has been answered before. First I would like to confirm that the
translation is very accurate.

To shed some light on the exception of existing customers, that this is caused
by special merchant's law in Germany. (I am no lawyer but ran a company long
enough to have some insights.)

The validity of contracts between and with "normal" people in Germany
is limited by law; e.g. if in Germany your employment contract contains a clause
you may not have homosexual relations, this clause is plainly invalid. Or you
agreed in your appartment rental contract, the rent is doubled every other week
- this is invalid, too.

However, contracts between merchants (in the sense of CEOs, CFOs, ...) are much
less restricted. It is assumed that merchants are more competent and independend
in their actions.

If a merchant signs a contract where he essentially agrees to pay for nothing
and may not even sue the other partner on any condition (as the SCO IP license
offer suggests), he is bound and it becomes very difficult to get out.

The german court assumed that SCO customers are "merchants" in the
beforementioned sense. They are not allowed to jump between SCO and any merchant
who is or was willing to sign their license unless specific laws are broken.
However, this does not completely protect SCO from lawsuits initiated by their
customers but these will have a difficult fight ahead.

Regards,

Michael Böhnisch

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Backs Off in Germany - Out-of-Court Settlement with Univention Reported
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 07 2004 @ 06:57 PM EST
I'm pretty lame with legal issues, but i have heard that in Germany, the system
is set up so that 'loser pays'. In that respect, SCO would be wise (is that an
oxymoron? sorry, couldn't resist) to tread carefully through Germany's legal
system.

Sounds like there are a number of other issues involved as well, some which seem
counter-intuitive, but with my limited knowledge, I think for the most part
Germany's legal system is a very good model.

-ryan

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Backs Off in Germany - Out-of-Court Settlement with Univention Reported
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2004 @ 01:55 AM EST
The last part of the settlement ought to be understood in the following way:
SCO was threatening private users that they might be sued for the use of LINUX
unless they are using SCO or CALDERA LINUX. SCO can now no longer make that
claim.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )