SFLC gang 'won' $90,000 + attorneys fees and costs and expenses against
LONG INSOLVENT AND ASSETS-DISSOLVED DEFENCELESS defendant on default.

Congrats to Eben Moglen and his underlings.

LOL.

regards,
alexander.

--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards
too, whereas GNU cannot.)

On 7/28/2010 8:41 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

This judgment is not surprising. Judge Scheindlin is considered a
national expert on electronic discovery sanctions. She takes a very
harsh view of parties who do not respond to discovery orders.
http://www.mttlr.org/voleleven/scheindlin.pdf

This is certainly a Pyrrhic default judgment for the SFLC. Since
Westinghouse no longer exists, the injunction is unenforceable against
Westinghouse. Getting a default judgment *granted* is one thing. Getting
a default judgment *enforced* is a whole 'nuther matter. The SFLC will
have to file in the California state court system to determine the true
successors in interest to Westinghouse in an attempt to collect the
fruits of their brilliant legal work.

Sincerely,
RJack :)

[...]

Good luck to the SFLC.

http://www.articlealley.com/article_1045510_19.html

"The ABC Option. In many states, another option that may be available to
companies in financial trouble is an assignment for the benefit of
creditors (or "general assignment for the benefit of creditors" as it is
sometimes called). The ABC is an insolvency proceeding governed by state
law rather than federal bankruptcy law."

http://wineindustryinsight.com/?p=7735

"In California, an assignment agreement does not require a court
filing."

http://bankruptcy.cooley.com/2008/03/articles/the-financially-trouble...

"In California, making an ABC does not require a public court filing.
Some other states, however, do require a court filing to initiate or
complete an ABC."

regards,
alexander.

--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards
too, whereas GNU cannot.)

On 7/28/2010 8:41 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

Uh... PJ over at Groklaw says the default judgment against Westeren
Digital proves, "Of course, to collect the money, the plaintiffs must
apply to bankruptcy court as a creditor, and you know from watching the
SCO case what can happen to creditors in a bankruptcy case, but if you
are one of the other defendants, one thing you know for sure now: the
GPL has teeth, it is enforceable in a court of law, and if you violate
it, it can cost you. Remember when you are choosing a license, you want
one that you know is enforceable in court."
http://www.groklaw.net/index.php

What bankruptcy court? Yeah... GREAT BIG TEETH. ROFL.

Judge Scheindlin awarded $47,010 for 54.2 hours work at $550 per hour to
the SFLC for attorney fees in the default judgment against Western
Digital Inc.

With nine defendants with *prestigious* law firms still in initial
discovery and long after Western Digital Inc. ceased to exist, there is
well over $500,000 in attorney fees at stake right now. Before any
future summary judgment can be ruled upon, probably one million dollars
in attorney fees will be at stake.

This is gonna' be an expensive lawsuit for the SFLC to lose. ROFL.

Sincerely,
RJack :)

On 8/3/2010 6:24 PM, RJack wrote:

The District court must dismiss the SOFTWARE FREEDOM CONSERVANCY, INC.
from the Best Buy litigation:

"The Copyright Act authorizes only two types of claimants to sue
for copyright infringement: (1) owners of copyrights, and (2) persons
who have been granted exclusive licenses by owners of copyrights.[Note 3]

[Note 3] ... We do not believe that the Copyright Act permits holders of
rights under copyrights to choose third parties to bring suits on their
behalf. While F.R.Civ.P. 17(a) ordinarily permits the real party in
interest to ratify a suit brought by another party, see Urrutia Aviation
Enterprises v. B.B. Burson & Associates, Inc., 406 F.2d 769, 770 (5th
Cir.1969); Clarkson Co. Ltd. v. Rockwell Int'l Corp., 441 F.Supp. 792
(N.D.Calif.1977), the Copyright Law is quite specific in stating that
only the "owner of an exclusive right under a copyright" may bring suit.
17 U.S.C. Sec. 501(b) (Supp. IV 1980)."; Eden Toys Inc v. Florelee
Undergarment Co Inc, 697 F.2d 27 (2nd Cir 1983).

I think it may have slipped Erik Andersen's mind that the SFLC can
represent him pro bone (for free) in the Best Buy litigation but
if the suit fails Erik is going to personally be on the hook for
nine defendants' attorney fees. I wonder if the SFLC will represent
him in bankruptcy court.

Sincerely,
RJack :)

On 8/4/2010 5:57 PM, RJack wrote:

None of them have failed yet.

On 8/4/2010 6:05 PM, Hyman Rosen wrote:

Yeah... yet. (Grin) Not... yet.

Sincerely,
RJack :)

Ha ha.

The GPL girl still can't grok that the copyright statute has absolutely
nothing to do with "enforcement" of copyright licensing contracts, but
admits that there are no conditions precedent in the GPL.

Well, at least some progress...

LOL.

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20100803132055210

(from comments)

-----
Let's Think This Through

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 04 2010 @ 02:23 PM EDT

The only thing this cases teaches is that it is costly to ignore a
court's
discovery orders *regardless* of the subject matter of the case. Judge
Scheindlin is considered a national expert on electronic discovery and
sanctions.

This Judge Scheindlin ruling is what should concern GPL advocates:

n52. "Plaintiffs bring claims for "Contract Failure of Condition"
against each defendant. The Court is not familiar with this term. I
assume "Contract Failure of Condition" is a claim for breach of a
condition precedent." Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank, et al. v. Morgan
Stanley & Co., et al., 1:2008cv07508, SDNY, (2008). -- Judge Shira
A. Scheindlin. http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/AbuDhabi.pdf

I promise you Judge Scheindlin will view the "conditions" of the GPL
license very differently from the FSF and SFLC's interpretation of
"conditions" to a copyright license grant.
-----

-----
Let's Think This Through

Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, August 04 2010 @ 07:56 PM EDT

Um. You are quoting from a case [PDF] that had nothing to do with the
GPL. It was a fraud and breach of contract case, among other things,
having nothing to do with software.

You don't enforce the GPL with contract law.

So your comment makes no sense, not to put too fine a point on it. You
enforce the GPL exclusively with copyright law, and there is no issue of
breach of a condition precedent.

Do you know what that means? Here's what condition precedent means:

condition precedent n. 1) in a contract, an event which must take place
before a party to a contract must perform or do their part. 2) in a deed
to real property, an event which has to occur before the title (or other
right) to the property will actually be in the name (vest) of the party
receiving title. Examples: if the ship makes it to port, the buyer
agrees to pay for the freight on the ship and unload it; when daughter
Gracella marries she shall then have full title to the property.

There are no conditions precedent in the GPL. None. And there's no
breach of contract. It's all about copyright law. So what is it you are
saying? There's no connection at all to the GPL or what is being
discussed in the BestBuy case.
-----

regards,
alexander.

--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards
too, whereas GNU cannot.)

that would be westinghouse digital. westinghouse is that company from the
last century that makes heavy electric equipment.

western digital makes disk drives and is not a part of this issue.

On 8/5/2010 9:13 PM, voodoo wrote:

You are correct. It is Westinghouse Digital. There is certainly strong
grounds to appeal the default judgment by Westinghouse's successors in
interest. Here is a summary of the default judgment law of the Second
Circuit, which controls the Westinghouse case:

"At an inquest, the complaint's factual allegations must be accepted as
true except as they relate to damages.  See Au Bon Pain Corp. v. Artect,
Inc., 653 F.2d 61, 65 (2d Cir. 1981). In addition, the plaintiff is
entitled to all reasonable inferences from the evidence presented. See
id. ...

A court must evaluate whether a basis for damages exists in a
circumstance where a judgment by default is rendered, and a plaintiff
must establish the quantum of damages in a post-default inquest, "unless
the amount is liquidated or susceptible of mathematical computation."
Flaks v. Koegel, 504 F.2d 702, 707 (2d Cir. 1974) (citations omitted).
"[U]nless the amount of damages [is] absolutely certain, the court is
required to make an independent determination of the sum to be awarded."
  S.E.C. v. Writ. Dynamics, Inc., 515 F.2d 801, 814 (2d Cir. 1975). A
court should not award damages if the evidence presented by a plaintiff,
at an inquest, does not adequately provide a reasonable basis for
determining damages.  See In re Crazy Eddie Litigation, 948 F. Supp.
1154, 1160 (E.D.N.Y. 1996) (citation omitted)."
http://www.josephnyc.com/blog/?blogID=765

The damages suffered for code released under the GPL is zero since
the GPL requires licensing "at no cost to all third parties". Hence the
statutory damages award against Westinghouse are wildly
disproportionate. Statutory copyright damages must bear some rational
relationship to actual damages suffered.

Sincerely,
RJack :)

How long have they got to start the appeal process?

Well, that means that they don't have to pay the court costs and fees
connected with this defendant.  Quite substantial.

"Successor in interest" means you inherit the good along with the bad.
"I did not bother to defend myself" is not strong grounds for appeal.

[...]

With that kind of argumentation, robbing a charity should never result
in statutory damages since the goods were not to be sold for profit
anyway.  Or you could burn down a storehouse, and there would not be
"actual" damages for any items that were not already preordered.

The GPL requires licensing "at no cost to all third parties" for stuff
plaintiffs _received_ under the GPL.  But the plaintiffs are suing for
those parts they wrote themselves and copyrighted themselves.

--
David Kastrup

On 8/6/2010 3:38 AM, David Kastrup wrote:

So... the plaintiffs deliberately lied in the pleadings when they
claimed they licensed their code under the GPL? That's not good.
Perhaps it was the Artistic License which Hyman believes is
interchangeable with the GPL?

When you make stuff up, you should attempt to at least be consistent
in your fantasizing DAK. Your fantasies are leading you down the yellow
brick road to Hyman Rosen's World.

They're coming to take me away, HA HA
They're coming to take me away, HO HO HEE HEE HA HA
To the funny farm
Where life is beautiful all the time
And I'll be happy to see
Those nice, young men
In their clean, white coats
And they're coming to take me away, Ha-haaa!

Sincerely,
RJack :)

On 8/6/2010 2:03 AM, voodoo wrote:

I doubt they'll appeal. The attorney fees for our modern day legal
robber barons are too much to justify an appeal.

The SFLC's Dan Ravicher filed a series of copyright cases which he moved
to voluntarily dismiss without a stipulated settlement (he failed to
plead any copyright registrations). For this the court thinks he's worth
$550 per hour.

Sincerely,
RJack :)

Huh?  I don't see anything in the above that could lead a sane person to
that conclusion.

Of course.  So what lead _you_ to that conclusion?

--
David Kastrup

On 8/6/2010 7:09 AM, David Kastrup wrote:

Yeah, well, that makes sense, doesn't it? :-)

How much one must pay to Eric Andersen for his alleged contributions to
the BusyBox publicly available under the GPL, you retard?

"22. Mr. Andersen has distributed BusyBox since on or about November 4,
1999. He
distributes BusyBox in source code form, the human-readable form of a
computer program that a
programmer must have in order to make changes to the program. Mr.
Andersen distributes
BusyBox under a copyright license entitled the “GNU General Public
License, Version 2” (“the
License”). A copy of the License is attached to this Complaint as
Exhibit A."

Didn't YOU claim that ALL contributions coming in touch with the GPL'd
work fall under the GPL and hence must be licensed "at no cost to all
third parties"?

Stop being utter moron Hyman.

regards,
alexander.

--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards
too, whereas GNU cannot.)

On 8/6/2010 12:20 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
 > contributions to the BusyBox publicly available under the GPL

Nothing at all, as long as one has not violated his copyright
by failing to honor the conditions of the GPL when copying and
distributing work on which he holds copyright.

No. All work copied and distributed as part of a combined work which
includes components licensed under the GPL must be licensed under the
GPL as well, except when the GPL permits otherwise through the aggregate
work exception. Derivative works of works licensed under the GPL may
only be copied and distributed if they are licensed under the GPL.

It's all very basic stuff and not especially difficult to understand
and follow, except for people who are looking for ways to avoid the
obligations of the GPL while still copying and distributing GPLed
work.

For the non-thieves, simply think of a GPLed component as a short
story. Permission to include it in an anthology is similar to
permission needed to include GPLed code as part of a larger linked
program. Permission to adapt it into a novel is similar to permission
needed to modify GPLed code.

And permission to dynamically link to it is similar to permission
needed to list it in a bibliography, which is to say none.

He has the freedom to offer different conditions for code copyrighted by
him alone.  He also has the freedom to sell a copy of the combined work
for whatever amount he wants while obeying the conditions of the GPL.

Whether or not he exercises that option is his own choice.

--
David Kastrup

On 8/6/2010 12:39 PM, Hyman Rosen wrote:

The above mentioned claim is preempted by 17 USC sec. 301 and is legally
unenforceable.

Basic stuff made up by the FSF and stuff that is legally unenforceable.

The thieves are GPL licensors who try to steal other folks copyrights
with an illegal license.

Sincerely,
RJack :)

On 8/6/2010 4:21 PM, RJack wrote:

17 USC 301 is the law which says that states may not make their
own laws equivalent to copyright. It has nothing at all to do
with the GPL, since the GPL is a license that grants additional
permissions otherwise forbidden by federal copyright law.

All licenses are "made up" by their creators. The license is not
enforceable, but copyright is. The license grants permissions
that would not otherwise be available under plain copyright law,
but it grants those permissions only provided the conditions it
specifies are met.

The license is legal, and its acceptance is voluntary, so it
cannot steal anything. No one can ever be forced to accept the
GPL, but also no one (aside from the copyright holder) may copy
and distribute GPL-covered works without accepting it. The only
"stealing" comes from people who want to copy and distribute
GPL-covered works without accepting the conditions which permit
that.

On 8/9/2010 11:30 AM, Hyman Rosen wrote:

Under the criminal statutes, the crime of "attempted conversion" is an
attempt to exert unauthorized control over others property.

Using the GPL is attempting to seize control over all downstream third
parties' *exclusively owned* copyrights -- that *is* attempting to steal
in ever sense of the word.

Sincerely,
RJack :)

On 8/9/2010 3:53 PM, RJack wrote:

The GPL cannot seize anything. The GPL is a license that can
only be accepted voluntarily by someone choosing to copy and
distribute a covered work. No downstream third party exclusive
owner of copyrights can ever be forced to yield control of them.

The only attempt to exert unauthorized control over someone
else's property comes from the thieves and moochers who wish
to copy and distribute GPL-covered code without honoring the
license of that code. Fortunately, copyright law prevents them
from being able to do so.

On 8/9/2010 3:58 PM, Hyman Rosen wrote:

Which court has said this about your vaunted GPL?

RJack :)

On 8/9/2010 4:06 PM, RJack wrote:

The CAFC has said it about the Artistic License in the
JMRI case, and the GPL has similar enough features that
it is reasonable to assume the same outcome.

In Progress v. MySQL, the court said

<http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13584730711160488510>
     With respect to the General Public License ("GPL"), MYSQL has
     not demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the
     merits or irreparable harm. Affidavits submitted by the parties'
     experts raise a factual dispute concerning whether the Gemini
     program is a derivative or an independent and separate work
     under GPL ¶ 2. After hearing, MySQL seems to have the better
     argument here, but the matter is one of fair dispute. Moreover,
     I am not persuaded based on this record that the release of the
     Gemini source code in July 2001 didn't cure the breach.

indicating by context that the GPL is a meaningful license and the
arguments were to be about its details, not about its validity.