On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 17:04:20 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:
In article e2dbl.724$9t6@newsfe10.iad,
Thufir Hawat hawat.thu...@gmail.com wrote:
Err, why would a jury have anything to say about a settlement? How
could this settlement ever be introduced as evidence in some other
case? The point
On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 10:27:35 -0400, amicus_curious wrote:
Thufir Hawat hawat.thu...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:e2dbl.724$9t6@newsfe10.iad...
On Wed, 01 Apr 2009 12:34:29 -0400, amicus_curious wrote:
Thufir Hawat hawat.thu...@gmail.com wrote in message
Thufir Hawat hawat.thu...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:w6hcl.1223$g%5...@newsfe23.iad...
You say that the reason they settled cannot be determined, but it must
be that TomTom had no confidence in winning and were concerned with
minimizing their likely loss.
Where's your evidence?
On Mon, 06 Apr 2009 09:02:43 -0400, amicus_curious wrote:
Thufir Hawat hawat.thu...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:w6hcl.1223$g%5...@newsfe23.iad...
You say that the reason they settled cannot be determined, but it must
be that TomTom had no confidence in winning and were concerned with
Sermo Malifer sermomali...@noemail.com wrote in message
news:grcvqf$r5...@news.albasani.net...
No, he's just observing you have no evidence to support your assertions.
Of course I do. TomTom paid. They didn't pay just because they felt like
paying, they paid because of the only reason
amicus_curious wrote:
Sermo Malifer sermomali...@noemail.com wrote in message
news:grcvqf$r5...@news.albasani.net...
No, he's just observing you have no evidence to support your assertions.
Of course I do. TomTom paid. They didn't pay just because they felt like
paying, they paid
On Mon, 06 Apr 2009 12:35:30 -0400, amicus_curious wrote:
Sermo Malifer sermomali...@noemail.com wrote in message
news:grcvqf$r5...@news.albasani.net...
No, he's just observing you have no evidence to support your
assertions.
Of course I do.
No you don't, as proved by your continued
Sermo Malifer wrote:
Not in what you post!
TomTom paid and is changing their version of Linux to be
non-infringing.
No, the version of Linux isn't changing, the FAT file system is
being eliminated.
The kernel of an operating system, typically provides memory
management, process
In article e4hcl.1222$g%5.1...@newsfe23.iad,
Thufir Hawat hawat.thu...@gmail.com wrote:
Again, the settlement terms here wouldn't be evidence in a lawsuit not
between tomcat and microsoft, which is what I was replying to -- a
comment about the jury.
Yes, they could be evidence in another
dr_nikolaus_klepp dr.kl...@gmx.at wrote in message
news:2fe2e$49da3f6c$557d7df2$12...@news.inode.at...
you guys are nuts. what are you, unemplyed wannabee layers? do you really
think going to court is fun and fighting to the end is heroic? nuts. go
read maciavelli and clausewitz, think it
On Wed, 01 Apr 2009 12:34:29 -0400, amicus_curious wrote:
Thufir Hawat hawat.thu...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:3ijal.118624$rg3.97...@newsfe17.iad...
On Wed, 01 Apr 2009 08:55:28 -0400, amicus_curious wrote:
[...]
All it really indicates is that is was likely a term or result of the
Thufir Hawat hawat.thu...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:e2dbl.724$9t6@newsfe10.iad...
On Wed, 01 Apr 2009 12:34:29 -0400, amicus_curious wrote:
Thufir Hawat hawat.thu...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:3ijal.118624$rg3.97...@newsfe17.iad...
On Wed, 01 Apr 2009 08:55:28 -0400,
In article e2dbl.724$9t6@newsfe10.iad,
Thufir Hawat hawat.thu...@gmail.com wrote:
Err, why would a jury have anything to say about a settlement? How could
this settlement ever be introduced as evidence in some other case? The
point of settling is, partially, to avoid a jury.
Suppose
Tim Smith reply_in_gr...@mouse-potato.com writes:
You could just as validly argue that it must have been a large amount,
because if it was small, TomTom would be announcing the amount.
In reality, typically in a settlement over this kind of business
litigation, if one side wants the terms kept
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
At the Software Freedom Law Center Eben Moglen should announce, At
the S.F.L.C. propaganda is our most important product.
Only if Tom-Tom really is the loser.
But what if Tom-Tom paid Microsoft only $1.00?
There are those that will argue
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
Tim Smith reply_in_gr...@mouse-potato.com writes:
You could just as validly argue that it must have been a large amount,
because if it was small, TomTom would be announcing the amount.
In reality, typically in a settlement over this kind of business
litigation, if one
Rahul Dhesi c.c.ei...@xrexxmicro.usenet.us.com wrote in message
news:gqukq6$gb...@blue.rahul.net...
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
At the Software Freedom Law Center Eben Moglen should announce, At
the S.F.L.C. propaganda is our most important product.
Only if Tom-Tom really is the loser.
On Wed, 01 Apr 2009 08:55:28 -0400, amicus_curious wrote:
Whatever they paid, they also agreed to change their GPL code to not
infringe on the FAT patents. That is an acknowledgement that they
consider the patents valid.
All it really indicates is that is was likely a term or result of the
Rjack the stupid wrote:
Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.
For this simple truth you definitly speak too much. Ooops, you write, that
is not speak, so this proverb does not match Rjack.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Thufir Hawat hawat.thu...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:3ijal.118624$rg3.97...@newsfe17.iad...
On Wed, 01 Apr 2009 08:55:28 -0400, amicus_curious wrote:
Whatever they paid, they also agreed to change their GPL code to not
infringe on the FAT patents. That is an acknowledgement that they
dr_nikolaus_klepp wrote:
Rjack the stupid wrote:
Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.
For this simple truth you definitly speak too much. Ooops, you
write, that is not speak, so this proverb does not match Rjack.
'Nuther Freetard with a brilliant contribution to the
In article gqv0p4$tj...@blue.rahul.net,
c.c.ei...@xrexxmicro.usenet.us.com (Rahul Dhesi) wrote:
Where you get your statistics about typical settlements? How do you
define a typical settlement?
Observation of settlement reports in the press. Reading the settlement
reports filed with the
Tim Smith wrote:
In article gqv0p4$tj...@blue.rahul.net,
c.c.ei...@xrexxmicro.usenet.us.com (Rahul Dhesi) wrote:
Where you get your statistics about typical settlements? How do
you define a typical settlement?
Observation of settlement reports in the press. Reading the
settlement reports
Tim Smith reply_in_gr...@mouse-potato.com writes:
The only conclusion drawing has been from you--you've concluded that
because you don't know the details, it must have been a tiny
settlement.
Whenever anyboby acts in a manner contrary to his normal behavior, we
should look for an explanation.
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
Tim Smith reply_in_gr...@mouse-potato.com writes:
The only conclusion drawing has been from you--you've concluded
that because you don't know the details, it must have been a tiny
settlement.
Whenever anyboby acts in a manner contrary to his normal behavior,
we should
In article gr0isq$dp...@blue.rahul.net,
c.c.ei...@xrexxmicro.usenet.us.com (Rahul Dhesi) wrote:
If Ballmer and Microsoft won a major amount, they would brag about it.
If Tom-Tom was able to persuade Ballmer and Microsoft to keep that
amount secret, then Tom-Tom must have had significant
from its Linux kernel the code
that is covered by the patents.
http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/03
microsoft-and-tomtom-settle-patent-dispute.ars
That is one of the fastest settlements I have seen for a big corp.
Usually propellor heads will rachet up the ante all day
from Microsoft, but intends to remove from its Linux kernel the code
that is covered by the patents.
http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/03
microsoft-and-tomtom-settle-patent-dispute.ars
That is one of the fastest settlements I have seen for a big corp.
Usually propellor
, but intends to
remove from its Linux kernel the code that is covered by
the patents.
http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/03
microsoft-and-tomtom-settle-patent-dispute.ars
That is one of the fastest settlements I have seen for a big
corp. Usually propellor heads will rachet up the ante all
and continue business as usual, without having their own
source code base eaten by GPL patents.
http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/03
microsoft-and-tomtom-settle-patent-dispute.ars
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http
Phil Da Lick! wrote:
Copyright doesn't need to be registered.
This is from the United states Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit:
It provides that no action for infringement of the copyright in
any United States work shall be instituted until pre-registration
or registration of the
Phil Da Lick! wrote:
[...]
In our 'Professional' opinion? This from Professionals who filed
five consecutive copyright infringement cases for clients who had no
registered copyrights. ROFL
Copyright doesn't need to be registered.
See prerequisite for U.S. authors seeking to initiate a
Forgot to quote...
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Phil Da Lick! wrote:
[...]
In our 'Professional' opinion? This from Professionals who filed
five consecutive copyright infringement cases for clients who had no
registered copyrights. ROFL
Copyright doesn't need to be registered.
Rex Ballard wrote:
On Mar 30, 8:19 pm, Rjack u...@example.net wrote:
7 wrote:
Rjack the stupid 1 wrote:
Microsoft and TomTom have settled their controversial
patent dispute, which included allegations that the Linux
kernel infringes on Microsoft's filesystem patents. TomTom
has licensed the
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de wrote in message
news:49d1e09a.2322b...@web.de...
SFLC's spin-doctoring:
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2009/mar/30/settled-not-over-yet/
Well, it is the duty of the generals to rally the troops at all times, even
if it is necessary to lie or to
amicus_curious wrote:
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de wrote in message
news:49d1e09a.2322b...@web.de...
SFLC's spin-doctoring:
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2009/mar/30/settled-not-over-yet/
Well, it is the duty of the generals to rally the troops at all
times, even if it is
In article gqukq6$gb...@blue.rahul.net,
c.c.ei...@xrexxmicro.usenet.us.com (Rahul Dhesi) wrote:
There are those that will argue that Tom-Tom paid a lot more than that.
But if that were so, then Microsoft as the alleged winner would be proud
to disclose the high amount and Tom-Tom, as the
Rjack wrote:
Is patent aggression (being a patent plaintiff) anything like
copyright aggression? (being a copyright plaintiff)?
Copyright aggression would be directed at the consumer. Patent
aggression is generally directed at [would-be] competitors in
protectionist ways.
In our
Rjack u...@example.net writes:
At the Software Freedom Law Center Eben Moglen should announce, At
the S.F.L.C. propaganda is our most important product.
Only if Tom-Tom really is the loser.
But what if Tom-Tom paid Microsoft only $1.00?
There are those that will argue that Tom-Tom paid a lot
.
http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/03/microsoft-and-tomtom-settle-patent-dispute.ars
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
that is covered by the patents.
http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/03
microsoft-and-tomtom-settle-patent-dispute.ars
That is one of the fastest settlements I have seen for a big corp.
Usually propellor heads will rachet up the ante all day and all
night for years before making a move.
I
the code
that is covered by the patents.
http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/03
microsoft-and-tomtom-settle-patent-dispute.ars
That is one of the fastest settlements I have seen for a big corp.
Usually propellor heads will rachet up the ante all day and all
night for years before making
42 matches
Mail list logo
