Re: SFLC is SOL

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 o

Re: SFLC is SOL

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 co

Re: SFLC is SOL

Hyman Rosen wrote: On 4/13/2010 10:25 AM, RJack wrote: No Article III standing As the parties invoking federal jurisdiction, respondents bear the burden of showing standing by establishing, inter alia, t

Re: SFLC is SOL

On 4/13/2010 10:25 AM, RJack wrote: No Article III standing As the parties invoking federal jurisdiction, respondents bear the burden of showing standing by establishing, inter alia, that they h

Re: SFLC is SOL

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

Re: SFLC is SOL

Hyman Rosen wrote: 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

Re: SFLC is SOL

Alexander Terekhov 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". We

Re: SFLC is SOL

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 spent any of that ti

Re: SFLC is SOL

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 r

Re: SFLC is SOL

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 mea

Re: SFLC is SOL

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 c

Re: SFLC is SOL

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! But no matter how one construes the GPL, the requirement of consideration is not met. Though the licensor

Re: SFLC is SOL

Good morning Hyman! Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] > > hence the insistence that the GPL is not a contract. > > "Under California contract law..." http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:15936 --- This is not legal advice... As an atto

Re: SFLC is SOL

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 c

Re: SFLC is SOL

On Apr 12, 8:36 pm, "amicus_curious" wrote: > "Hadron" wrote in message > > news:rs3c97-ep1@news.eternal-september.org... > > > > > Rex Ballard writes: > > >> On Mar 15, 6:03 pm, RJack wrote: > >>> Rex Ballard wrote: > >>> > And before ANY of that goes to a jury, both sides have to show the

Re: SFLC is SOL

"amicus_curious" writes: > "Hadron" 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 photograph of the Tol

Re: SFLC is SOL

"Hadron" wrote in message news:rs3c97-ep1@news.eternal-september.org... Rex Ballard writes: On Mar 15, 6:03 pm, RJack 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 goe

Re: SFLC is SOL

Rex Ballard writes: > On Mar 15, 6:03 pm, RJack 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 M

Re: SFLC is SOL

On Mar 15, 6:03 pm, RJack 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 challenging

Re: SFLC is SOL

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 ju

Re: SFLC is SOL

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 . _

Re: SFLC is SOL

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

Re: SFLC is SOL

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > 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) >

Re: SFLC is SOL

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 p

Re: SFLC is SOL

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 Note: This is not a required download.

Re: SFLC is SOL

Hyman Rosen wrote: 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 g

Re: SFLC is SOL

RJack 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 > jurisdiction to he

Re: SFLC is SOL

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 verified

Re: SFLC is SOL

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, v

Re: SFLC is SOL

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 s

Re: SFLC is SOL

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 k

Re: SFLC is SOL

David Kastrup wrote: RJack 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 j

Re: SFLC is SOL

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" thereb

Re: SFLC is SOL

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 "una

Re: SFLC is SOL

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

Re: SFLC is SOL

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 creat

Re: SFLC is SOL

Hyman Rosen wrote: 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"???

Re: SFLC is SOL

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 jurisdi

Re: SFLC is SOL

In gnu.misc.discuss David Kastrup 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? ;-) --

Re: SFLC is SOL

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 i

Re: SFLC is SOL

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

Re: SFLC is SOL

Hyman Rosen 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 the GPL.

Re: SFLC is SOL

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 t

Re: SFLC is SOL

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

Re: SFLC is SOL

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.

Re: SFLC is SOL

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

Re: SFLC is SOL

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 bas

Re: SFLC is SOL

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

Re: SFLC is SOL

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.

Re: SFLC is SOL

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 t

Re: SFLC is SOL

Hyman Rosen 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 results of the

Re: SFLC is SOL

RJack writes: > David Kastrup wrote: >> RJack 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 here. If you, as

Re: SFLC is SOL

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."

Re: SFLC is SOL

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 requir

Re: SFLC is SOL

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

Re: SFLC is SOL

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 n

Re: SFLC is SOL

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 choos

Re: SFLC is SOL

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. n

Re: SFLC is SOL

David Kastrup wrote: RJack 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 thi

Re: SFLC is SOL

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

Re: SFLC is SOL

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 see

Re: SFLC is SOL

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) t

Re: SFLC is SOL

RJack 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 pa

Re: SFLC is SOL

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 t

Re: SFLC is SOL

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 Lice

Re: SFLC is SOL

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

Re: SFLC is SOL

Hyman Rosen 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 nothing to do w

Re: SFLC is SOL

RJack 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 preemption >

Re: SFLC is SOL

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 GPL

Re: SFLC is SOL

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 danger

Re: SFLC is SOL

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 clai

Re: SFLC is SOL

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

Re: SFLC is SOL

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. >

Re: SFLC is SOL

RJack writes: > Hence defendant Versa's Answer: > > == > FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE >(ILLEGAL, UNCONSCIONABLE AND CONTRARY TO PUBLIC POLICY) > > On information and belief, Defendant alleges that Plain

Re: SFLC is SOL

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 preem

Re: SFLC is SOL

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 contract.

Re: SFLC is SOL

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. reg

Re: SFLC is SOL

On Mar 9, 3:42 am, David Kastrup wrote: > RJack 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 don't the lose in a def

Re: SFLC is SOL

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 http://li

Re: SFLC is SOL

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 http

Re: SFLC is SOL

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 t

Re: SFLC is SOL

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > 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 >

Re: SFLC is SOL

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 Note: This is not a re

Re: SFLC is SOL

Alexander Terekhov writes: > David Kastrup wrote: >> >> Alexander Terekhov 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 >>

Re: SFLC is SOL

David Kastrup wrote: > > Alexander Terekhov 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 me

Re: SFLC is SOL

Alexander Terekhov 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 > > http://www.cortex-pro.com/hdc_3000.ph

Re: SFLC is SOL

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

Re: SFLC is SOL

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

Re: SFLC is SOL

Alan Mackenzie wrote: In gnu.misc.discuss 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? Could it be that you actually know the GPL is preempted and thus GPL code is q

Re: SFLC is SOL

In gnu.misc.discuss 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? > Could it be that you actually know the GPL is preempted and thus GPL > code is quasi-public domain

Re: SFLC is SOL

"amicus_curious" 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 ___ gnu-misc-discu

Re: SFLC is SOL

"Alexander Terekhov" 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: 03/08/2010 62 AN

Re: SFLC is SOL

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

Re: SFLC is SOL

David Kastrup wrote: RJack 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

Re: SFLC is SOL

RJack 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 know the GPL

Re: SFLC is SOL

David Kastrup wrote: > > Alexander Terekhov 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

Re: SFLC is SOL

David Kastrup wrote: Alexander Terekhov 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. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Involuntar

Re: SFLC is SOL

Alexander Terekhov 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. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Involun

Re: SFLC is SOL

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. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Involuntary_dismissal "Involuntary dismissal is

Re: SFLC is SOL

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 Digita

  1   2   >