Friverlous lawsuits can and have been used to bankrupt competition and you only have to look at sco v linux to see how far they can go
On 06/01/2010, Anthony <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 9:55 AM, Ulf Lamping > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Am 05.01.2010 15:17, schrieb Anthony: >> > I certainly don't suggest blatantly breaking the law. What I suggest is >> > not acting as though there is a law when you have no evidence that there >> is. >> > >> > So far no one has shown me the law that is supposedly being broken. One >> > brief attempt pointed to EU database law, which 1) hasn't been shown to >> > apply in Australia; and 2) hasn't been shown to apply to all instances >> > of copying anyway. >> >> So we'll end up with a map only being legally usable in Australia. > > > What makes you think that? > > >> Fine for you, but not a goal that I have. >> > > Nor a goal I have, since I don't live in Australia. > >> What we're left with is some sort of vague "Pascal's Wager" type >> > admonishment - "I have absolutely no evidence for my claims, but you >> > have to follow what I say anyway because not doing so would be >> > infinitely bad." I don't buy that crap. >> >> So unless a mapper was drawn to bancrupt at court, you still won't agree >> that there might be a problem. >> > > What makes you think that? > > On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 2:15 PM, John Smith <[email protected]>wrote: > >> 2010/1/6 Anthony <[email protected]>: >> > Really? Where? What laws are being suggested to be broken? >> >> Not familiar with frivilous lawsuits? >> > > Just don't see that applicability. > >> I certainly don't suggest blatantly breaking the law. What I suggest is >> not >> > acting as though there is a law when you have no evidence that there is. >> >> Not only is there copyright law, in the case of Google and other >> online services there is also contract law. >> > > Yes, there is also contract law which no one has shown to apply. By the > way, in any EU states, any contractual provision which attempts to "prevent > a lawful user of the database from extracting and/or re-utilizing > insubstantial parts of its contents, evaluated qualitatively and/or > quantitatively, for any purposes whatsoever" "is null and void". I don't > know if Australia has such a provision, though. > > >> > So far no one has shown me the law that is supposedly being broken. One >> > brief attempt pointed to EU database law, which 1) hasn't been shown to >> > apply in Australia; and 2) hasn't been shown to apply to all instances >> > of >> > copying anyway. >> >> You mustn't have asked the right questions, see the Telstra ruling. >> > > Seems to me there's a difference between copying an entire phone book and > copying a few street names. I find it hard to believe that anyone who gives > someone else directions after consulting with a map is committing a > copyright violation. > _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
