Hey Burfel, developments!
8/28 IBM filed supplimental authorities.
Wallace didn't file a response to IBM's supplimental authorities. (The
FRAP says that a reply can be filed if it is prompt.)
IBM filed Schor v. Abbott Laboratories concerning a section 2
monopoly leveraging theory (with Judge
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
8/28 IBM filed supplimental authorities.
[...]
These appellate judges are no morons
Remember that line. You'll be singing a different tune once they
finish the case.
I can't exclude that possibility
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
8/28 IBM filed supplimental authorities.
[...]
These appellate judges are no morons
Remember that line. You'll be singing a different tune once they
finish
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
8/28 IBM filed supplimental authorities.
[...]
These appellate judges are no morons
Remember that line. You'll be singing a
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
8/28 IBM filed supplimental authorities.
[...]
These appellate judges are no morons
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
And a copy made under a license retains the license obligations.
is quite telling.
Read a dictionary. Keep in place is perfectly acceptable definition
Which place, dak? And what puts it in place to begin with? And recall
that your GNUtian authority comrade
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
And a copy made under a license retains the license obligations.
is quite telling.
Read a dictionary. Keep in place is perfectly acceptable definition
Which place, dak? And what
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
.. i
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
. ii
ARGUMENT
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
Ter, 2006-07-25 Ã s 11:35 +0200, Alexander Terekhov escreveu:
with GNUtians. It's like trying to prove a negative. GNUtians postulate
that pigs can fly and then expect you to disprove their claims. Here's
Judge Newman of the United States Court of Appeals
Alabama Petrofsky wrote:
[...]
as a maximum vertical price fixing agreement, either of which would
be reviewed under the rule of reason.
Well, well, well.
-
48.1. The State of Arizona wins. The U.S. Supreme Court held that the
defendants, the Medical Society, Foundation, and its
Seg, 2006-07-24 às 13:45 +0200, Alexander Terekhov escreveu:
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
[...]
So either you're misquoting, or Nimmer's
It's neither. It's just your stupidity. Failure to perform according
to the covenants stated in the GPL is not a copyright infringement. It
is a
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
[...]
It's not because you're not required to accept it. :)
Ah that. Well, it appears that Prof. Nimmer also thinks that RMS is a
lunatic. GPL has a schizophrenic approach as to whether it is grounded
in contractual or non-contractual terms. ...
You are not
Sáb, 2006-07-22 às 13:43 +0200, Alexander Terekhov escreveu:
Nimmer continued...
-
While proponents refer to such restrictions as creating “free” software,
protecting rights, persons affected or potentially affected by the terms
tend to refer to the risk of “viral” license terms that
Alexander Terekhov writes:
...persons affected or potentially affected by the terms tend to refer to
the risk of viral license terms that reach out to infect their own,
separately developed software...
There is, as you know very well, no such risk.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Alabama Petrofsky wrote:
[...]
According to its Preamble, the purpose of the GPL is to guarantee
the freedom to share
and change free software--to make sure the software is free for all its
users. GPL at 1. The
Preamble goes on to explain
Alabama Petrofsky wrote:
[...]
The existence of so many distributors of GPL software other than the
three defendants named here also raises serious questions whether the
injunction plaintiff seeks could be effective in preventing the use
of the Linux operating system, as those not a party
16 matches
Mail list logo
