the alleged license at issue in this case and/or certain provisions
contained therein are illegal, unconscionable and barred by public
policy as well as by
statutory and case law.
Exactly.
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(INDISPENSABLE PARTIES)
On information and belief, Defendant alleges that
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
the alleged license at issue in this case and/or certain provisions
contained therein are illegal, unconscionable and barred by public
policy as well as by statutory and case law.
They'll have a fun time
a) proving that statement
b) telling the
David Kastrup pulled this Usenet boner:
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
Have you ever timed these rjack/terekhov irruptions to determine
if they coincide with any natural cycles?
--
I'll burn my books.
-- Christopher Marlowe
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
the alleged license at issue in this case and/or certain
provisions contained therein are illegal, unconscionable and barred
by public policy as well as by statutory and case law.
They'll have a fun time
a) proving that
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
David Kastrup pulled this Usenet boner:
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
Have you ever timed these rjack/terekhov irruptions to determine if
they coincide with any natural cycles?
Actually, there are certain natural cycles of moaning and grunting that
RJack wrote:
[...]
b) They'll tell the court that the doctrine of promissory estoppel applies.
That's Versa's tenth defense.
TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(ESTOPPEL)
On information and belief, Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs claims are
barred by the doctrine of estoppel.
I also like
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
RJack wrote:
[...]
b) They'll tell the court that the doctrine of promissory estoppel applies.
That's Versa's tenth defense.
TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(ESTOPPEL)
On information and belief, Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs’ claims are
barred
David Kastrup wrote:
We'll see how much of the defendants beliefs survives in court.
You betch'a. No more voluntary dismissals. That's all that real folks
have ever asked for -- a court ruling concerning the GPL on the merits.
So, hopefully, we'll really see.
Sincerely,
RJack :)
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
RJack wrote:
[...]
b) They'll tell the court that the doctrine of promissory estoppel applies.
That's Versa's tenth defense.
TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(ESTOPPEL)
On information and belief, Defendant alleges
RJack u...@example.net writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
We'll see how much of the defendants beliefs survives in court.
You betch'a. No more voluntary dismissals. That's all that real folks
have ever asked for -- a court ruling concerning the GPL on the merits.
You won't see that this time
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
RJack wrote: [...]
b) They'll tell the court that the doctrine of promissory
estoppel applies.
That's Versa's tenth defense.
TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
RJack u...@example.net writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
On information and belief, Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs’
claims are barred by the doctrine of estoppel.
Yeah, that one is hilarious as well. Dear court, how could we
assume that we had
David Kastrup wrote:
RJack u...@example.net writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
On information and belief, Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs’
claims are barred by the doctrine of estoppel.
Yeah, that one is hilarious as well. Dear court, how could we
On 3/9/2010 7:09 AM, RJack wrote:
a) The court will immediately find the GPL unenforceable because of the
preemption doctrine established by 17 USC sec. 301(a).
Preemption has nothing to do with the GPL, since this is
a case of normal copyright infringement brought under the
federal copyright
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 3/9/2010 7:09 AM, RJack wrote:
a) The court will immediately find the GPL unenforceable because of
the preemption doctrine established by 17 USC sec. 301(a).
Preemption has nothing to do with the GPL, since this is a case of
normal copyright infringement brought under
On 3/9/2010 7:28 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Oh poor SFLC...
You appear to have very strange beliefs about the legal
system. Aside from your general misunderstanding of
copyright law, you seem to believe that answers and
counterclaims have some magical power merely by being
stated. Proper
On 3/9/2010 8:45 AM, RJack wrote:
Once the GPL is invalidated
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf
Copyright holders who engage in open source licensing have
the right to control the modification and distribution of
copyrighted material. As the Second Circuit explained
On 3/9/2010 9:11 AM, RJack wrote:
Uhhh. What's abnormal copyright infringement?
When there are other defenses possible under federal law,
such as fair use or time shifting or reverse engineering.
Normal copyright infringement is simply unauthorized
copying and distribution with nothing else
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 3/9/2010 9:11 AM, RJack wrote:
Uhhh. What's abnormal copyright infringement?
When there are other defenses possible under federal law,
such as fair use or time shifting or reverse engineering.
Normal copyright infringement is simply unauthorized
copying and
On 3/9/2010 9:40 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Q: If you call a tail a leg, how many legs has a dog? Five?
When a court does the calling, yes.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 3/9/2010 8:45 AM, RJack wrote:
Once the GPL is invalidated
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf Copyright holders
who engage in open source licensing have the right to control the
modification and distribution of copyrighted material. As the Second
Circuit
On 3/9/2010 10:00 AM, RJack wrote:
The case is filed in the Second Circuit.
The CAFC has no precedental value anywhere in the
federal system.
The reasoning will apply universally, since it is correct.
At the end of the day, 'statutory damages should bear
some relation to actual damages
RJack u...@example.net writes:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 3/9/2010 8:45 AM, RJack wrote:
Once the GPL is invalidated
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf
You've already lost.
You might as well cite to the law of Zimbabwe Hymen. The case is filed
in the Second Circuit. The CAFC
David Kastrup wrote:
RJack u...@example.net writes:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 3/9/2010 8:45 AM, RJack wrote:
Once the GPL is invalidated
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf
You've already lost.
You might as well cite to the law of Zimbabwe Hymen. The case is
filed in the Second
On 3/9/2010 10:16 AM, RJack wrote:
Since the defendants aren't infringing under Second Circuit
precedental law there will be no damages at all.
The defendants are infringing by copying and distributing
copyrighted computer programs without permission.
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
RJack wrote: [...]
b) They'll tell the court that the doctrine of promissory
estoppel applies.
That's Versa's tenth defense.
TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (ESTOPPEL)
On information and belief, Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs’
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 3/9/2010 10:16 AM, RJack wrote:
Since the defendants aren't infringing under Second Circuit
precedental law there will be no damages at all.
The defendants are infringing by copying and distributing copyrighted
computer programs without permission.
Dream on silly boy.
27 matches
Mail list logo
