RJack u...@example.net writes:
The SFLC has finally bought itself a shit-load of trouble.
Because defendents write up a defense? That's not really that
remarkable.
13. Best Buy requests a jury trial on all issues triable of right by a
jury.
Juries don't interpret the law but decide on
RJack wrote:
The SFLC has finally bought itself a shit-load of trouble. Five of
fourteen defendants' ANSWERS TO COMPLAINT are up on the SDNY PACER site.
It's actually more than five in the meantime:
03/08/2010 62 ANSWER to Complaint with JURY DEMAND. Document filed by
Westinghouse Digital
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
David Kastrup wrote: [...]
This means that the SFLC cannot file a vouluntary dismissal
without the permission of Best Buy Inc.
There is no such thing as filing an unvoluntary dismissal.
Uh retard dak.
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
This means that the SFLC cannot file a vouluntary dismissal without
the permission of Best Buy Inc.
There is no such thing as filing an unvoluntary dismissal.
Uh retard dak.
RJack u...@example.net writes:
If you are so smart at interpreting the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, why are you so dumb at grasping doctrines like preemption
and promissory estoppel?
They don't apply where there is no preemption and no promissory
estoppel.
Could it be that you actually
David Kastrup wrote:
RJack u...@example.net writes:
If you are so smart at interpreting the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, why are you so dumb at grasping doctrines like
preemption and promissory estoppel?
They don't apply where there is no preemption and no promissory
estoppel.
On 3/9/2010 8:35 AM, RJack wrote:
If you are so smart at interpreting the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, why are you so dumb at grasping doctrines like preemption
and promissory estoppel?
Neither of those applies to the GPL. Preemption is irrelevant
because GPL claims are filed with respect
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de wrote in message
news:4b9625a2.f8e31...@web.de...
RJack wrote:
The SFLC has finally bought itself a shit-load of trouble. Five of
fourteen defendants' ANSWERS TO COMPLAINT are up on the SDNY PACER site.
It's actually more than five in the meantime:
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
Any merits of the case aside, it would seem to me that Moglen, et al
has bitten off a rather large chaw.
Fortunately, it is not the job of the court to put any merits of the
case aside.
--
David Kastrup
___
In gnu.misc.discuss RJack u...@example.net wrote:
If you are so smart at interpreting the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, why are you so dumb at grasping doctrines like preemption
and promissory estoppel?
Could it be that you actually know the GPL is preempted and thus GPL
code is
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In gnu.misc.discuss RJack u...@example.net wrote:
If you are so smart at interpreting the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, why are you so dumb at grasping doctrines like
preemption and promissory estoppel?
Could it be that you actually know the GPL is preempted and
RJack wrote:
PACER:
SFLC just voluntarily dismissed GCI Technologies Corp.
Has anyone seen this pattern before?
Sincerely,
RJack :)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
RJack wrote:
RJack wrote:
PACER:
SFLC just voluntarily dismissed GCI Technologies Corp.
Uh, where is the SFLC's fucking press release triumphing yet another GPL
'settlement victory'?
In the meantime
http://www.cortex-pro.com/hdc_3000.php?t=3
is still in breach.
regards,
alexander.
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
RJack wrote:
RJack wrote:
PACER:
SFLC just voluntarily dismissed GCI Technologies Corp.
Uh, where is the SFLC's fucking press release triumphing yet another GPL
'settlement victory'?
In the meantime
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
RJack wrote:
RJack wrote:
PACER:
SFLC just voluntarily dismissed GCI Technologies Corp.
Uh, where is the SFLC's fucking press release triumphing yet another GPL
'settlement victory'?
In the meantime
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
RJack wrote:
RJack wrote:
PACER:
SFLC just voluntarily dismissed GCI Technologies Corp.
Uh, where is the SFLC's fucking press release triumphing yet another GPL
On 3/10/2010 11:35 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
In the meantime
http://www.cortex-pro.com/hdc_3000.php?t=3
is still in breach.
Not any more. On that page, we now have
HDC-3000 Open Source Release
http://www.cortex-pro.com/upload/march122010/hdc-3000.zip
Note: This is not a
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 3/15/2010 3:20 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Did you check the completeness of source code
No. I'm insufficiently motivated to go set up a
How do you know that GCI Tech. is not in breach then you silly?
regards,
alexander.
P.S. I'm insufficiently motivated to go
On 3/15/2010 3:20 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Did you check the completeness of source code
No. I'm insufficiently motivated to go set up a
GNU/Linux system so that I can do the builds.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
On 3/15/2010 4:02 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
How do you know that GCI Tech. is not in breach then
Because they settled with the SFLC, demonstrated by the
SFLC dismissing its case.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
On Mar 9, 3:42 am, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote:
RJack u...@example.net writes:
The SFLC has finally bought itself a shit-load of trouble.
Because defendents write up a defense? That's not really that
remarkable.
Actually, the defendents are required by law to file a response. If
they
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 3/15/2010 4:02 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
How do you know that GCI Tech. is not in breach then
Because they settled with the SFLC, demonstrated by the
SFLC dismissing its case.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091020161950.htm
Hth, Hyman.
regards,
Rex Ballard wrote:
And before ANY of that goes to a jury, both sides have to show their
cards to the Judge and to each other.
Before ANY of this even goes to the discovery stage, the defendants
will file FRCP Rule 12 Motions to Dismiss challenging the legal
enforceability of the GPL
On 3/15/2010 6:03 PM, RJack wrote:
You may accept as gospel that
at some point before general discovery begins, a Motion to Dismiss based
on 17 USC 301 and federal preemption as well as a claim of misuse of
copyright will be filed that challenges the GPL.
That seems unlikely since federal
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 3/15/2010 6:03 PM, RJack wrote:
You may accept as gospel that
at some point before general discovery begins, a Motion to Dismiss based
on 17 USC 301 and federal preemption as well as a claim of misuse of
copyright will be filed that challenges the GPL.
That
On 3/16/2010 6:58 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
federal preemption of state
copyright enforcement has nothing to do with the GPL.
It's about
http://escholarship.org/uc/item/31t5x09h
(eScholarship: Copyright Preemption of Contracts)
http://escholarship.org/uc/item/31t5x09h
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[... http://escholarship.org/uc/item/31t5x09h ...]
As usual, the sources you cite contradict your thesis.
Preemption is entirely irrelevant to the GPL.
Read a bit more than a couple of introductory paragraphs, silly Hyman.
Courts simply attempt to apply to contract claims
On 3/16/2010 10:05 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Read a bit more than a couple of introductory paragraphs
Nothing else you quote at all supports the notion that
preemption has anything to do with the GPL. That's not
surprising, since preemption has nothing to do with the
GPL.
That is a
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 3/16/2010 10:05 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Read a bit more than a couple of introductory paragraphs
Nothing else you quote at all supports the notion that preemption has
anything to do with the GPL. That's not surprising, since preemption
has nothing to do with the
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com writes:
On 3/16/2010 10:05 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Read a bit more than a couple of introductory paragraphs
Nothing else you quote at all supports the notion that
preemption has anything to do with the GPL. That's not
surprising, since preemption has
RJack u...@example.net writes:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 3/16/2010 10:05 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Read a bit more than a couple of introductory paragraphs
Nothing else you quote at all supports the notion that preemption has
anything to do with the GPL. That's not surprising, since
On 3/16/2010 11:42 AM, RJack wrote:
GPLv2:
b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
parties under the terms of this License.
Supreme Court:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 3/16/2010 11:42 AM, RJack wrote:
GPLv2: b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish,
that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or
any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all
third parties under the terms of this
On 3/16/2010 12:03 PM, RJack wrote:
That's a really brilliant tautology.
If I never use the GPL then the Supreme Court ruling doesn't apply!
Clever. Really clever.
If you choose not to avail yourself of the permissions granted
by the GPL, then you are not bound by it. The Supreme Court says
RJack u...@example.net writes:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 3/16/2010 11:42 AM, RJack wrote:
GPLv2: b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish,
that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or
any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all
third
Plaintiffs Humax, Western Digital, JVC, Versa and Best BUy correctly
asserted that the plaintiffs lack standing to bring the GPL claims.
The GPL attempts to grant benefits to all third parties
(hence the name Public License). Nowhere in the GPL is either actual
party (i.e. non-third party) to
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 3/16/2010 12:03 PM, RJack wrote:
That's a really brilliant tautology. If I never use the GPL then
the Supreme Court ruling doesn't apply! Clever. Really clever.
If you choose not to avail yourself of the permissions granted by the
GPL, then you are not bound by it. The
On 3/16/2010 12:27 PM, RJack wrote:
A plaintiff must point to some type of cognizable harm, whether such
harm is physical, economic, reputational, contractual, or even
aesthetic. . . But the injury in fact test requires more than an injury
to a cognizable interest. It requires that the party
RJack wrote:
Plaintiffs Humax, Western Digital, JVC, Versa and Best BUy correctly
asserted that the plaintiffs lack standing to bring the GPL claims.
The GPL attempts to grant benefits to all third parties (hence the
name Public License). Nowhere in the GPL is either actual party
(i.e.
On 3/16/2010 12:40 PM, RJack wrote:
If you choose not to avail yourself of the permissions granted by the
GPL, then you are not bound by it. The Supreme Court says that a
contract cannot bind a non-party. Both of these things are
simultaneously true. You seem very confused. Certainly if you
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 3/16/2010 12:03 PM, RJack wrote:
That's a really brilliant tautology.
If I never use the GPL then the Supreme Court ruling doesn't apply!
Clever. Really clever.
If you choose not to avail yourself of the permissions granted
by the GPL, then you are not bound by
On 3/16/2010 12:46 PM, RJack wrote:
Plaintiffs Humax, Western Digital, JVC, Versa and Best BUy correctly
asserted that the plaintiffs lack standing to bring the GPL claims.
No, they are incorrect in their claim.
The GPL attempts to grant benefits to all third parties
(hence the name Public
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 3/16/2010 12:27 PM, RJack wrote:
A plaintiff must point to some type of cognizable harm, whether
such harm is physical, economic, reputational, contractual, or even
aesthetic. . . But the injury in fact test requires more than an
injury to a cognizable interest. It
On 3/16/2010 11:51 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
To quote IBM:
The ownership interests contributors to software licensed under the
GPL might have in their modifications are seriously limited, given
that any distribution of those modifications must be done under the
terms of the GPL.
RJack u...@example.net writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
RJack u...@example.net writes:
That's a really brilliant tautology. If I never use the GPL then
the Supreme Court ruling doesn't apply! Clever. Really clever.
You are getting this backwards. The Supreme Court talks about
non-parties
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com writes:
On 3/16/2010 12:46 PM, RJack wrote:
Plaintiffs Humax, Western Digital, JVC, Versa and Best BUy correctly
asserted that the plaintiffs lack standing to bring the GPL claims.
No, they are incorrect in their claim.
Fortunately, we can just wait for the
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 3/16/2010 11:51 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
To quote IBM: The ownership interests contributors to software
licensed under the GPL might have in their modifications are
seriously limited, given that any distribution of those
modifications must be done under the terms of
On 3/16/2010 1:00 PM, RJack wrote:
Even the distribution of derivative works? Really?
Hop on over to your copy of the Copyright Act and show us.
Who am I supposed to believe? You or my lyin' eyes?
17 USC 106, of course.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/usc_sec_17_0106000-.html
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
Copyright in a derivative work is held by both the original
author and by the author of the derivative work, and therefore
Read 17 USC 103, retard Hyman. And think of derivative works based on
public domain material.
The copyright in a compilation or derivative work
On 3/16/2010 12:28 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Copyright in a derivative work is held by both the original
author and by the author of the derivative work, and therefore
Read 17 USC 103. And think of derivative works based on
public domain material.
A derivative work
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
For example, an author may have someone prepare a translation of
his work into a different language, and the translator then owns
copyright in the translation, but may not copy and distribute the
translation without permission from the original author because
the
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 3/16/2010 1:00 PM, RJack wrote:
Even the distribution of derivative works? Really? Hop on over to
your copy of the Copyright Act and show us. Who am I supposed to
believe? You or my lyin' eyes?
17 USC 106, of course.
On 3/16/2010 12:45 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
The ownership interests translators to works licensed under the
GPL might have in their translations are seriously limited, given
that any distribution of those translations must be done under the
terms of the GPL.
Yes, choosing to create a work
On 3/16/2010 1:54 PM, RJack wrote:
There exist two mutually exclusive copyrights in a derivative work (17
USC § 103). Nothing but a claim of *contract* will legally secure the
two mutually exclusive permissions required to distribute a derivative
work as a whole. (Assuming two authors).
The
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com writes:
On 3/16/2010 12:45 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
The ownership interests translators to works licensed under the
GPL might have in their translations are seriously limited, given
that any distribution of those translations must be done under the
terms of
On 3/16/2010 12:45 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
The ownership interests translators to works licensed under the
GPL might have in their translations are seriously limited, given
that any distribution of those translations must be done under the
terms of the GPL.
Yes, choosing to create a work
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
work be covered by the GPL doesn't change that. However,
this license is useless without a matching license in the
Re matching license to retarded gnutians:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091020161950.htm
Hth, Hyman.
regards,
alexander.
P.S. I'm
In gnu.misc.discuss David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote:
The complaint is not relevant for a settlement out of court anyway.
The past misconduct can't be cured by distributing complaint source
with non-corresponding newer binaries.
Why would one want to distribute a writ with the newer binaries?
On 3/22/2010 3:56 PM, RJack wrote:
Just for once Hyman, try to read the Complaint. Andersen claims
(falsely) that he owns BusyBox, v.0.60.3 -- that's exactly what he
re4gistered with the Copyright Office. His claim to ownership of
BusyBox, v.0.60.3 is the *only* thing that gives the court
On 3/16/2010 2:43 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
The unadorned copyright doesn't not put restrictions on terms and
conditions of licensing of the new copyright in a derivative work (which
is exclusive rights and which belongs to the author of derivative work)
to all third parties thereby creating
On 3/22/2010 1:08 PM, RJack wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 3/22/2010 11:30 AM, RJack wrote:
It is easily verified that neither link leads to the alleged
infringed program source code.
Of what use is a transparent lie?
Transparent lie? TRANSPARENT LIE???
Show me a link to the
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
Yes. Preemption would apply when state law attempted to restrict
what is otherwise permitted in terms similar to copyright. But the
GPL does not restrict any behavior permitted by unadorned copyright
law, and therefore preemption is irrelevant to the GPL.
The
On 3/16/2010 4:39 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
The unadorned copyright doesn't, (does) not put restrictions on terms
and conditions of licensing of the new copyright in a derivative work
(which is exclusive right and which belongs to the author of derivative
work) to all third parties thereby
David Kastrup wrote:
RJack u...@example.net writes:
Just for once Hyman, try to read the Complaint. Andersen claims
(falsely) that he owns BusyBox, v.0.60.3 -- that's exactly what he
re4gistered with the Copyright Office. His claim to ownership of
BusyBox, v.0.60.3 is the *only* thing that
Just as I predicted, a familiar pattern is emerging in the Best Buy et.
al. charade. The SFLC has stipulated extensions of time in Best Buy and
Western Digital discovery schedules so that overseas licensors may be
further investigated. This is the same pattern as Verizon (who also told
them to
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
to continue, and we indeed already have compliance from one
of the defendants in the recent filings.
Wow, you already have compliance one of the defendants? Sez who? LMAO,
silly Hyman!
regards,
alexander.
P.S. I'm insufficiently motivated to go set up a GNU/Linux
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 3/22/2010 11:30 AM, RJack wrote:
It is easily verified that neither link leads to the alleged
infringed program source code.
Of what use is a transparent lie?
Transparent lie? TRANSPARENT LIE???
Show me a link to the source code for BusyBox,
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote: [...]
to continue, and we indeed already have compliance from one of the
defendants in the recent filings.
Wow, you already have compliance one of the defendants? Sez who?
LMAO, silly Hyman!
The SFLC retreat into total defeat is easily
RJack u...@example.net writes:
Just for once Hyman, try to read the Complaint. Andersen claims
(falsely) that he owns BusyBox, v.0.60.3 -- that's exactly what he
re4gistered with the Copyright Office. His claim to ownership of
BusyBox, v.0.60.3 is the *only* thing that gives the court
On 3/19/2010 2:14 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Wow, you already have compliance one of the defendants? Sez who?
The web page of the defendants, here:
HDC-3000 Open Source Release
http://www.cortex-pro.com/upload/march122010/hdc-3000.zip
Note: This is not a required download.
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 3/19/2010 4:15 PM, RJack wrote:
The plaintiffs can verify absolutely *nothing* about their vacuous
propaganda claims of compliance.
Of course they can. Verification is as simple as going to the web
page of the defendants and seeing that the GPLed sources are now
being
On 3/19/2010 4:15 PM, RJack wrote:
The plaintiffs can verify absolutely *nothing*
about their vacuous propaganda claims of compliance.
Of course they can. Verification is as simple as going to
the web page of the defendants and seeing that the GPLed
sources are now being properly distributed:
On 3/22/2010 11:30 AM, RJack wrote:
It is easily verified that neither link leads to the alleged infringed
program source code.
Of what use is a transparent lie? The source code for BusyBox is included in
http://www.cortex-pro.com/upload/march122010/hdc-3000.zip.
On 3/19/2010 2:38 PM, RJack wrote:
This is the same pattern as Verizon (who also told
them to kiss their ass)
After the case against Verizon ended, Verizon made the
GPL-ed sources properly available. Thus, a successful
outcome for the SFLC.
The SFLC will *never* voluntarily allow a federal
On Mar 15, 6:03 pm, RJack u...@example.net wrote:
Rex Ballard wrote:
And before ANY of that goes to a jury, both sides have to show their
cards to the Judge and to each other.
Before ANY of this even goes to the discovery stage, the defendants
will file FRCP Rule 12 Motions to Dismiss
Rex Ballard rex.ball...@gmail.com writes:
On Mar 15, 6:03 pm, RJack u...@example.net wrote:
Rex Ballard wrote:
And before ANY of that goes to a jury, both sides have to show their
cards to the Judge and to each other.
Before ANY of this even goes to the discovery stage, the defendants
Hadron hadronqu...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:rs3c97-ep1@news.eternal-september.org...
Rex Ballard rex.ball...@gmail.com writes:
On Mar 15, 6:03 pm, RJack u...@example.net wrote:
Rex Ballard wrote:
And before ANY of that goes to a jury, both sides have to show their
cards to
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
Hadron hadronqu...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:rs3c97-ep1@news.eternal-september.org...
Answer : yes they are. And no amount of whining and freetardery will
change that.
Things are not that simple, else, why have lawyers? If you, say, take
a
On Apr 12, 8:36 pm, amicus_curious a...@sti.net wrote:
Hadron hadronqu...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:rs3c97-ep1@news.eternal-september.org...
Rex Ballard rex.ball...@gmail.com writes:
On Mar 15, 6:03 pm, RJack u...@example.net wrote:
Rex Ballard wrote:
And before ANY of
On 4/12/2010 8:36 PM, amicus_curious wrote:
Now consider that the binary form of a software
program is the image. Then the computer used to compile the software
binary is, in effect, the camera and the source code is the directions
on where to stand and where to point the camera. Is that source
Good morning Hyman!
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
hence the insistence that the GPL is not a contract.
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf
Under California contract law...
http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:15936
---
This is not legal advice...
As an attorney
On 4/13/2010 9:20 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:15936
I can quote meaningless random papers too!
http://www.sapnakumar.org/EnfGPL.pdf
But no matter how one construes the GPL, the requirement of
consideration is not met. Though the
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/12/2010 8:36 PM, amicus_curious wrote:
Now consider that the binary form of a software program is the
image. Then the computer used to compile the software binary is, in
effect, the camera and the source code is the directions on where
to stand and where to point the
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/13/2010 9:20 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:15936
dteme...@nvalaw.com is a real attorney spending a great deal of time on
software related IP licensing and litigation matters.
http://nvalaw.com/
I can quote
On 4/13/2010 10:01 AM, RJack wrote:
1) The SFLC is being tried in a federal district in the Second Circuit
not in the CAFC:
The JMRI case would be useful as toilet paper (and nothing more) in the
Second Circuit.
The reasoning of the CAFC is sound, and therefore other
courts can be expected to
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/13/2010 9:20 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:15936
dteme...@nvalaw.com is a real attorney spending a great deal of time on
software related IP licensing and litigation matters.
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/13/2010 10:05 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
dteme...@nvalaw.com is a real attorney spending a great deal of
time on software related IP licensing and litigation matters.
Real attorneys who spend a great deal of time on IP licensing and
litigation are unlikely to have
On 4/13/2010 10:25 AM, RJack wrote:
No Article III standing
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=casecourt=usvol=504invol=555
As the parties invoking federal jurisdiction, respondents
bear the burden of showing standing by establishing, inter
alia, that they have
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/13/2010 10:25 AM, RJack wrote:
No Article III standing
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=casecourt=usvol=504invol=555
As the parties invoking federal jurisdiction, respondents bear the
burden of showing standing by establishing, inter alia, that
On 4/13/2010 10:37 AM, RJack wrote:
Hyman you bandy about the term open license as if it is a special,
exceptional category of copyright license -- it isn't.
Open licenses are special, since they are offered unilaterally
by licensors without communication or agreement with licensees.
ALL
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/13/2010 10:37 AM, RJack wrote:
Hyman you bandy about the term open license as if it is a special,
exceptional category of copyright license -- it isn't.
Open licenses are special, since they are offered unilaterally
by licensors without communication or
91 matches
Mail list logo
