amicus_curious wrote: > > "Rahul Dhesi" <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:[email protected]... >> "amicus_curious" <[email protected]> writes: >> >>>What is kind of interesting here is that the GPL purists, notably SJVN, a >>>Linux blogger of note, is insisting that TomTom be barred from making any >>>kind of patent deal with Mr. Softee.... >> >> Welcome to the workings of the adversary system of justice. Maybe this >> is the first time you are being exposed to it. Here's how it works. >> >> The copyright owner, and those cheering for the copyright owner, will >> ask for the earth and the moon and an injunction prohibiting any further >> copying. Sometimes the injunction is granted. You might recall the >> famous mp3.com case, in which the RIAA and its members essentially wiped >> out a half-billion-dollar company overnight with an injunction. >> >> The defendant, on the other hand, and those cheering for it (typically >> including you and Rjack :-) may make pious claims and act hurt like >> wounded puppies (we are shocked, shocked!) and may argue that there is >> no infringement at all. Or even that there is no valid copyright at >> all, like what JMRI argued. >> >> What will really happen? We don't know yet. The only thing we can be >> sure about is that there will be a lot of posturing from both sides. >> >> Often, there is a settlement which gives something to each side. >> >> However, so far as I know, none of the Linux kernel copyright holders >> has yet sued Tom-Tom, and we don't know that there even will be such a >> lawsuit. So you can wait for the game to start before you start cheering >> for your side. >> -- > You seem to be an answer in search of a question here. I don't see where > anything I posted has anything to do with what you replied. I am not > cheering for anyone here. I just think that it is interesting that the > GPL advocates are calling for the heads of anyone who may have capitulated > to the patent claims being asserted by Microsoft in regard to the FAT file > design.
They're only calling for the terms of the GPL to be enforced, just as you want to see M$ pantent terms enforced. > Realistically there does not seem to be any way to use FAT files > without using (and infringing upon) the FAT design. Infringing on the design? It's infringing on a patent that should have never been granted in the first place, and which has already been struck down in Germany. > On the other hand, there doesn't seem to be anybody with standing > interested in suing GPL users for licensing the FAT patents as a defense > against Microsoft suits. Perhaps the fact this only recently came to light has something to do with that? > Is the Linux code even registered for copyright? You've been bashing GPL all this time without knowing that? > I could not find it. That's a big part of being a Wintroll! > Torvalds has registered the trademark, I know, but what about the code? Why don't you exercise that marvelous M$ search engine? > Who could actually sue on this issue? So you argue first and collect facts second? _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
