Pee Jay says silence is golden
RJack
at her Groklaw blog?
"Also, I thought you'd find it interesting that an antiGPL activist,
Alexander Terekhov, has for years been posting comments on the internet
that the way to, in essence, steal GPL code is to use first sale and
copyright misuse. Another example. Here's the beginning of a long thread
on that topic, and you'll notice that his contributions also mention
copyright misuse and how rms is allegedly trying to destroy 'freedom'
with the GPL. He also claimed that Eben Moglen would never dare to go to
court against Cisco/Linksys/Broadcom or whoever, because he'd lose since
his GPL 'game' was all about bluff. That was in 2004. As you know, the
Software Freedom Law Center has since gone to court successfully
regarding the GPL multiple times, so be aware that his "legal" views are
not accurate, in my view. Here's the Cisco/Linksys settlement in May,
for example. But I've wondered if SCO saw all the comments from him and
Daniel Wallace, a/k/a gumout, and actually believed it was worth trying
some of their theories, thinking the FSF would be a pushover, and I
wonder the same about Psystar's more subtle approach."
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2009081716312060
Pee Jay trumpeted, "the Software Freedom Law Center has since
gone to court successfully regarding the GPL multiple times". This,
despite Eben Moglen's SFLC voluntarily dismissing the seven suits before
a federal judge could ever read a single word of any complaint.
Now that the internet is buzzing with the fraudulent copyright claims of
Erik Andersen, where pray tell, is Pee Jay's analysis of the
situation? Who's stealing the code now, Pee Jay?
As is typical of the blogs astro-turfing for Eben Moglen and the SFLC,
Groklaw wallows in the golden sound of silence. Pee Jay had an
apoplectic fit of moral outrage when SCO tried a scam on folks. Where's
the moral outrage now Pee Jay? Alexander was 100% on target when
he claimed, "[T]hat Eben Moglen would never dare to go to court against
Cisco/Linksys/Broadcom or whoever, because he'd lose since his GPL
'game' was all about bluff".
BLUFF and FRAUD. Pee Jay, that's what the GPL is all about. BLUFF and FRAUD.
You can rest assured that the fourteen defendants' legal departments
in the SFLC's current fraudulent action will want to depose Mr. Andersen
concerning his copyright "ownership" of BusyBox v. 0.60.3. Let the games
begin.
The SFLC, frivolously and with the intent to harass and intimidate the
defendants, filed seven consecutive federal lawsuits without the legal
standing to do so. So... a fraudulent copyright registration was filed
to remedy the standing issue. That's out of the frying pan and into the
fire.
A federal court is going to call the SFLC's bluff sooner or later. Let
the games begin.
Sincerely,
Rjack
Alan Mackenzie
> Pee Jay trumpeted, "the Software Freedom Law Center has since
> gone to court successfully regarding the GPL multiple times". This,
> despite Eben Moglen's SFLC voluntarily dismissing the seven suits before
> a federal judge could ever read a single word of any complaint.
You've been told already ad nauseam that this "voluntary dismissal" is a
codeword for "settled, with the defendants having come into compliance".
Your continual insinuation that the SFLC simply lost these cases is what
you would refer to as "lying".
> Now that the internet is buzzing with the fraudulent copyright claims of
> Erik Andersen, where pray tell, is Pee Jay's analysis of the
> situation? Who's stealing the code now, Pee Jay?
The complaint you refer to elsewhere states that Erik Andersen is _a_
copyright holder, not _the_ copyright holder.
> BLUFF and FRAUD. Pee Jay, that's what the GPL is all about. BLUFF and
> FRAUD.
Funny thing, though, when alleged violations of the GPL do reach the
courtroom, the GPL is upheld.
> You can rest assured that the fourteen defendants' legal departments in
> the SFLC's current fraudulent action will want to depose Mr. Andersen
> concerning his copyright "ownership" of BusyBox v. 0.60.3. Let the
> games begin.
I suggest you email all these lawyers to point out the fraud you allege.
> The SFLC, frivolously and with the intent to harass and intimidate the
> defendants, ....
There's nothing frivolous about defending the GPL, since it lies at the
heart of how most free software is produced.
> Sincerely,
> Rjack
--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
Alexander Terekhov
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[...]
> The complaint you refer to elsewhere states that Erik Andersen is _a_
> copyright holder, not _the_ copyright holder.
The copyright registration names only Erik as author and claimant, not
Erik et al or some such.
Moglen himself wrote that
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.html
"If there are multiple authors of a copyrighted work, successful
enforcement depends on having the cooperation of all authors.
In order to make sure that all of our copyrights can meet the
recordkeeping and other requirements of registration... "
So stop spouting bullshit, silly Alan.
See "Adding Mutiple Authors" and "Adding Mutiple Claimants".
http://www.copyright.gov/eco/eco-tutorial.pdf
and also
http://openjurist.org/147/f3d/195
"Thomson's request for a declaratory judgment establishing her
co-authorship under the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. �� 101 et seq.,
requires us to interpret and apply the copyright ownership provisions of
the Act. The Copyright Act defines a "joint work" as "a work prepared by
two or more authors with the intention that their contributions be
merged into inseparable or interdependent parts of a unitary whole." 17
U.S.C. � 101 (1994). The touchstone of the statutory definition "is the
intention at the time the writing is done that the parts be absorbed or
combined into an integrated unit." H.R.Rep. No. 1476, 94th Cong. 120,
121 (1976), reprinted in 1976 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin. News 5659, 5735.
Joint authorship entitles the co-authors to equal undivided interests in
the whole work--in other words, each joint author has the right to use
or to license the work as he or she wishes, subject only to the
obligation to account to the other joint owner for any profits that are
made. See 17 U.S.C. � 201(a); Childress, 945 F.2d at 508; Community for
Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 846 F.2d 1485, 1498 (D.C.Cir.1988)
("Joint authors co-owning copyright in a work are deemed to be tenants
in common, with each having an independent right to use or license the
copyright, subject only to a duty to account to the other co-owner for
any profits earned thereby."), aff'd. without consideration on this
point, 490 U.S. 730, 109 S.Ct. 2166, 104 L.Ed.2d 811 (1989)."
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.)
Alan Mackenzie
> Alan Mackenzie wrote: [...]
>> The complaint you refer to elsewhere states that Erik Andersen is _a_
>> copyright holder, not _the_ copyright holder.
> The copyright registration names only Erik as author and claimant, not
> Erik et al or some such.
> Moglen himself wrote that
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.html
> "If there are multiple authors of a copyrighted work, successful
> enforcement depends on having the cooperation of all authors.
> In order to make sure that all of our copyrights can meet the
> recordkeeping and other requirements of registration... "
I'm informed by no less an authority than Rjack himself that it is the
person(s) registered as the copyright holder who has the right to sue,
not the actual authors. The other authors presumably would have standing
to challenge that copyright registration should they wish. It's
difficult to see why they should, since Andersen, in shouldering the
burden of the lagal action, is simply seeking to enforce the license
busybox is released under, to which all the authors have assented.
> regards,
> alexander.
RJack
> I'm informed by no less an authority than Rjack himself that it is
> the person(s) registered as the copyright holder who has the right to
> sue, not the actual authors.
Where the fuck did you read such nonsense Alan?
> The other authors presumably would have standing to challenge that
> copyright registration should they wish.
The defendants have standing to challenge that copyright registration.
> It's difficult to see why they should, since Andersen, in shouldering
> the burden of the lagal action, is simply seeking to enforce the
> license busybox is released under, to which all the authors have
> assented.
Alan, perhaps you could speak to Alexander in German for additional
help in understanding what the word "exclusive" in:
"� 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works.
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this
title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the
following:..."
Until Free Softies come to understand what Congress meant by the term
"exclusive rights", they are destined to continue to wander in the
desert. I know you socialists find the concept of "exclusive rights"
anathema but that's the way it is.
Sincerely,
RJack
Alan Mackenzie
>> I'm informed by no less an authority than Rjack himself that it is
>> the person(s) registered as the copyright holder who has the right to
>> sue, not the actual authors.
> Where the fuck did you read such nonsense Alan?
Here on this mailing list in your articles. I think you have written
often enough that before a USA copyright holder can enforce his
copyright, he needs to have registered it. The other side of that coin
is that it is the registered copyright holder who can sue.
>> The other authors presumably would have standing to challenge that
>> copyright registration should they wish.
> The defendants have standing to challenge that copyright registration.
Wierd. Why do they have this standing? It would appear to be none of
their business precisely who is registered as the copyright owner.
>> It's difficult to see why they should, since Andersen, in shouldering
>> the burden of the legal action, is simply seeking to enforce the
>> license busybox is released under, to which all the authors have
>> assented.
So, tell me please Rj, under USA law is it the registered copyright
holder or the authors of a work who have standing to sue in a copyright
dispute? My understanding of your posts is that it is the registered
copyright holder. Would you please clarify.
> Sincerely,
> RJack
Alexander Terekhov
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[...]
> > The defendants have standing to challenge that copyright registration.
>
> Wierd. Why do they have this standing? It would appear to be none of
> their business precisely who is registered as the copyright owner.
Uh silly Alan...
http://www.allbusiness.com/legal/intellectual-property-copyright/125937-1.html
"Fraud on the Copyright Office can invalidate a copyright registration.
As you may recall, copyright registration is not a prerequisite to
ownership of a copyright; copyright springs into existence automatically
when a work of authorship is fixed in a tangible medium. But copyright
registration is required to bring an infringement suit, and fraud on the
Copyright Office will defeat registration and thus destroy the
jurisdictional basis for a copyright infringement case.
Fraud requires a specific intent to deceive or cheat, but that can be
shown by circumstantial evidence. So, fraud on the Copyright Office
generally arises in the context of a mistake in a copyright registration
that the defendant, the accused infringer, will try to argue was
deliberate. If the defendant can show that the mistake was deliberate
and material, and therefore fraud on the Copyright Office, then the
defendant may succeed in getting an infringement suit thrown out of
court. (The copyright owner may be able to re-register and re-file the
suit, but may lose the right to statutory damages and an award of
attorneys' fees that early registration provides.)
The Ninth Circuit has said that inadvertent mistakes in a copyright
registration do not invalidate the registration and thus do not bar
infringement actions, unless the alleged infringer has relied to its
detriment on the mistake, or the claimant intended to defraud the
Copyright Office by making the misstatement. So an innocent mistake will
not invalidate the copyright registration.
It is better to avoid an argument about whether a mistake is innocent or
fraudulent, however. This is one good reason to be careful when
preparing your application for copyright registration. The forms are
simple and the instructions are generally clear. But sometimes the
issues can be tricky. In particular, be careful if the work is based
upon a preexisting work, or if it has been prepared by an independent
contractor. If you have any questions, it may be worth your time and
money to have an attorney assist you in preparing your copyright
registration forms.
Bob Godhey is a partner in the Honolulu law firm of Jackson Godbey
Griffiths. A graduate of the Harvard Law School, he has degrees in
electrical engineering and math. He welcomes comments at www.LawHI.com.
RJack
> In gnu.misc.discuss RJack <us...@example.net> wrote:
>> Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>
>>> I'm informed by no less an authority than Rjack himself that it
>>> is the person(s) registered as the copyright holder who has the
>>> right to sue, not the actual authors.
>
>> Where the fuck did you read such nonsense Alan?
>
> Here on this mailing list in your articles. I think you have written
> often enough that before a USA copyright holder can enforce his
> copyright, he needs to have registered it.
So where'd the "... not the actual authors" come from Alan?
> The other side of that coin is that it is the registered copyright
> holder who can sue.
>
>>> The other authors presumably would have standing to challenge
>>> that copyright registration should they wish.
>
>> The defendants have standing to challenge that copyright
>> registration.
>
> Wierd. Why do they have this standing? It would appear to be none
> of their business precisely who is registered as the copyright owner.
>
Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh... do you mean if I sued you for copyright infringement
you wouldn't be curious about the work I claim that you copied? Hmmm...
>>> It's difficult to see why they should, since Andersen, in
>>> shouldering the burden of the legal action, is simply seeking to
>>> enforce the license busybox is released under, to which all the
>>> authors have assented.
>
> So, tell me please Rj, under USA law is it the registered copyright
> holder or the authors of a work who have standing to sue in a
> copyright dispute? My understanding of your posts is that it is the
> registered copyright holder. Would you please clarify.
The copyright registration must be filed in the name of the *owner* of
the copyrighted work.
See:
"17 USC � 408. Copyright registration in general
(a) Registration Permissive. � At any time during the subsistence of the
first term of copyright in any published or unpublished work in which
the copyright was secured before January 1, 1978, and during the
subsistence of any copyright secured on or after that date, the owner of
copyright or of any exclusive right in the work may obtain registration
of the copyright claim by delivering to the Copyright Office the deposit
specified by this section, together with the application and fee
specified by sections 409 and 708. Such registration is not a condition
of copyright protection."
An *original author* may transfer ownership of the copyrights to his
work to a new owner but the original author remains the "author" of record.
See:
"17 USC � 102. Subject matter of copyright: In general.
(a) Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in
original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression,
now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived,
reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid
of a machine or device. Works of authorship include the following
categories:..."
"17 USC � 101 A �transfer of copyright ownership� is an assignment,
mortgage, exclusive license, or any other conveyance, alienation, or
hypothecation of a copyright or of any of the exclusive rights comprised
in a copyright, whether or not it is limited in time or place of effect,
but not including a nonexclusive license."
The GPL is, of course, a nonexclusive license.
Sincerely,
RJack
Hadron
> "17 USC § 408. Copyright registration in general
> (a) Registration Permissive. — At any time during the subsistence of the
> first term of copyright in any published or unpublished work in which
> the copyright was secured before January 1, 1978, and during the
> subsistence of any copyright secured on or after that date, the owner of
> copyright or of any exclusive right in the work may obtain registration
> of the copyright claim by delivering to the Copyright Office the deposit
> specified by this section, together with the application and fee
> specified by sections 409 and 708. Such registration is not a condition
> of copyright protection."
>
> An *original author* may transfer ownership of the copyrights to his
> work to a new owner but the original author remains the "author" of record.
>
> See:
>
> "17 USC § 102. Subject matter of copyright: In general.
>
> (a) Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in
> original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression,
> now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived,
> reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid
> of a machine or device. Works of authorship include the following
> categories:..."
>
> "17 USC § 101 A “transfer of copyright ownership” is an assignment,
> mortgage, exclusive license, or any other conveyance, alienation, or
> hypothecation of a copyright or of any of the exclusive rights comprised
> in a copyright, whether or not it is limited in time or place of effect,
> but not including a nonexclusive license."
>
> The GPL is, of course, a nonexclusive license.
>
> Sincerely,
> RJack
Didn't Alan boldly claim that the GPL was "easy to understand"?
It seems that with every post he contradicts himself.
RJack
>
> I suggest you email all these lawyers to point out the fraud you
> allege.
>
I am quite busy with grandkids this week but I an aware of other's
efforts to do that very thing wrt the legal departments of the fourteen
corporate defendants.
I suspect Erik Andersen has stepped on his weenie this time. All
charades have to end eventually. It's tough to have your bluff called.
Paying fourteen legal firms attorney fees because of a fraudulent
copyright claim could be very expensive.
See:
"17 USC � 505. Remedies for infringement: Costs and attorney's fees
In any civil action under this title, the court in its discretion may
allow the recovery of full costs by or against any party other than the
United States or an officer thereof. Except as otherwise provided by
this title, the court may also award a reasonable attorney's fee to the
prevailing party as part of the costs."
Sincerely,
RJack
Alan Mackenzie
> Didn't Alan boldly claim that the GPL was "easy to understand"?
Yes. The GPL is very easy to understand. It's USA copyright law which
is hard.
The only people who find the GPL hard are those who seek a legal means of
violating it.
Hadron
> In gnu.misc.discuss Hadron <hadro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Didn't Alan boldly claim that the GPL was "easy to understand"?
>
> Yes. The GPL is very easy to understand. It's USA copyright law which
> is hard.
>
> The only people who find the GPL hard are those who seek a legal means of
> violating it.
And just about everyone that ever uses it, reads it or discusses it. I
find it amazing that you keep insisting it is so easy and yet we see you
embroiled in nitpicking over meaning time and time again. You're either
very thick skinned or in denial.
David Kastrup
> In gnu.misc.discuss Hadron <hadro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Didn't Alan boldly claim that the GPL was "easy to understand"?
>
> Yes. The GPL is very easy to understand. It's USA copyright law
> which is hard.
>
> The only people who find the GPL hard are those who seek a legal means
> of violating it.
The examples I have seen from them here, however, again boil down to
their problems with understanding copyright, not the GPL.
--
David Kastrup
Alexander Terekhov
Note that even Pee Jay has admitted that
"a lot of people don't understand the GPL, including some lawyers"
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20031214210634851
<chuckles>
Peter Köhlmann
"Nitpicking" are the cretins like Rjack or Alex T
They are either too thick to understand simple concepts, or they don't
want to "understand" to keep on trolling
The GPL *is* simple to understand. That *you* are unable to is not
surprising. You would not understand the simplest of things
--
A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely
rearranging their prejudices. -- William James
Hadron
> Hadron wrote:
>>
>> Alan Mackenzie <a...@muc.de> writes:
>>
>> > In gnu.misc.discuss Hadron <hadro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Didn't Alan boldly claim that the GPL was "easy to understand"?
>> >
>> > Yes. The GPL is very easy to understand. It's USA copyright law which
>> > is hard.
>> >
>> > The only people who find the GPL hard are those who seek a legal means of
>> > violating it.
>>
>> And just about everyone that ever uses it, reads it or discusses it. I
>> find it amazing that you keep insisting it is so easy and yet we see you
>> embroiled in nitpicking over meaning time and time again. You're either
>> very thick skinned or in denial.
>
> Note that even Pee Jay has admitted that
>
> "a lot of people don't understand the GPL, including some lawyers"
>
> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20031214210634851
>
> <chuckles>
>
It's abundantly clear there is an issue. How anyone can deny it is quite
beyond me. It's like the COLA disease of thinking there is no issue with
UI consistency on the Linux desktop where every study and sane thinker
shows there is.
Hadron
> Hadron wrote:
>
>> Alan Mackenzie <a...@muc.de> writes:
>>
>>> In gnu.misc.discuss Hadron <hadro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Didn't Alan boldly claim that the GPL was "easy to understand"?
>>>
>>> Yes. The GPL is very easy to understand. It's USA copyright law which
>>> is hard.
>>>
>>> The only people who find the GPL hard are those who seek a legal means
>>> of violating it.
>>
>> And just about everyone that ever uses it, reads it or discusses it. I
>> find it amazing that you keep insisting it is so easy and yet we see you
>> embroiled in nitpicking over meaning time and time again. You're either
>> very thick skinned or in denial.
>
> "Nitpicking" are the cretins like Rjack or Alex T
> They are either too thick to understand simple concepts, or they don't
> want to "understand" to keep on trolling
>
> The GPL *is* simple to understand. That *you* are unable to is not
> surprising. You would not understand the simplest of things
Says the closed source windows programmer who insists its ok to
dereference a null pointer in C.
You have zero credibility. Go away.
chrisv
>
>> Alan Mackenzie <a...@muc.de> writes:
>>>
>>> The only people who find the GPL hard are those who seek a legal means
>>> of violating it.
>>
>> And just about everyone that ever uses it, reads it or discusses it.
Stop lying, "true Linux advocate" Hadron Quark.
>> I find it amazing that
I find it amazing that you don't get your ass kicked on a daily basis,
asshole.
>> you keep insisting it is so easy and yet we see you
>> embroiled in nitpicking over meaning time and time again. You're either
>> very thick skinned or in denial.
Because stupid trolls keep repeating the same nonsense, and he's
slapping them down. You, "Hadron", being a stupid troll yourself,
should know all about that...
--
"choice : for the brain dead." - "True Linux advocate" Hadron Quark
JEDIDIAH
Bad rhetoric isn't a sufficient argument.
--
The social cost of suing/prosecuting individuals |||
for non-commercial copyright infringement far outweighs / | \
the social value of copyright to begin with.
JEDIDIAH
>
>> In gnu.misc.discuss Hadron <hadro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Didn't Alan boldly claim that the GPL was "easy to understand"?
>>
>> Yes. The GPL is very easy to understand. It's USA copyright law which
>> is hard.
>>
>> The only people who find the GPL hard are those who seek a legal means of
>> violating it.
>
> And just about everyone that ever uses it, reads it or discusses it. I
Nope.
Only a few self-centered trouble makers choose to make anything complicated
out of it. Typically, these people have a toddler's view of property rights.
> find it amazing that you keep insisting it is so easy and yet we see you
> embroiled in nitpicking over meaning time and time again. You're either
> very thick skinned or in denial.
>
>
JEDIDIAH
>
>
>
> Hadron wrote:
>>
>> Alan Mackenzie <a...@muc.de> writes:
>>
>> > In gnu.misc.discuss Hadron <hadro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Didn't Alan boldly claim that the GPL was "easy to understand"?
>> >
>> > Yes. The GPL is very easy to understand. It's USA copyright law which
>> > is hard.
>> >
>> > The only people who find the GPL hard are those who seek a legal means of
>> > violating it.
>>
>> And just about everyone that ever uses it, reads it or discusses it. I
>> find it amazing that you keep insisting it is so easy and yet we see you
>> embroiled in nitpicking over meaning time and time again. You're either
>> very thick skinned or in denial.
>
> Note that even Pee Jay has admitted that
>
> "a lot of people don't understand the GPL, including some lawyers"
>
> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20031214210634851
So? Some lawyers aren't terribly good at contract law in general
despite this is one of those things they even cover in law school.
[deletia]
Peter Köhlmann
Strange that I have only programmed for linux for the last weeks, though
I have done less than one hour on windows programs the last 6 weeks. To
find and elimate a bug
Apart from that: It is perfectly OK for a linux advocate to program for
other environments, too.
YOu are just insanely jealous that you are unable to even *use* linux,
much less program for it
> who insists its ok to dereference a null pointer in C.
You might provide a Msg-ID for the "it is OK" part you keep claiming
> You have zero credibility. Go away.
Even *if* that were true, it would still be a lot more than you will ever
have, "true linux advocate", "kernel hacker", "emacs user", "swapfile
expert", "X specialist", "CUPS guru", "USB-disk server admin", "defragger
professional", "newsreader magician", "hardware maven", "time
coordinator", "email sage", "tripwire wizard", "Pulseaudio rockstar",
"XORG sorcerer", "filesystem pro" and "OSS culling committee chairman"
Hadron Quark, aka Hans Schneider, aka Richard, aka Damian O'Leary, aka
Steve Townsend, aka Ubuntu King
--
Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly.
-- Henry Spencer
chrisv
> "Hadron" snotted:
>>
>> (snip lies)
>>
>> You have zero credibility. Go away.
LOL
A charge of "zero credibility", from the totally anti-FOSS, bald-faced
liar "Hadron" Quack.
> Bad rhetoric isn't a sufficient argument.
"Hadron" got to make a jackass of himself in several groups, today!
--
'What amazes me is the "zealots" continually harp on about the "number
of apps". The fact that more than half are incomplete, forgotten,
buggy and plain rubbish doesn't seem to matter.' - "True Linux
advocate" Hadron Quark
Alan Mackenzie
>> I suggest you email all these lawyers to point out the fraud you
>> allege.
> I am quite busy with grandkids this week but I an aware of other's
> efforts to do that very thing wrt the legal departments of the fourteen
> corporate defendants.
Hope you have a good week with the little terrors.
> I suspect Erik Andersen has stepped on his weenie this time. All
> charades have to end eventually. It's tough to have your bluff called.
> Paying fourteen legal firms attorney fees because of a fraudulent
> copyright claim could be very expensive.
We shall see, in the fullness of time. However, it's not a fraudulent
claim. It would appear that busybox's copyright has been violated, and
Erik Andersen is a copyright holder. If a case is dismissed on a
technicality, that isn't fraud.
However, if your view of the case were accurate, the SFLC wouldn't have
Started it in the first place.
I suspect the usual thing will happen, there will be a settlement with
each defendent involving it coming into compliance with the GPL,
appointing a compliance officer, and paying an unspecified sum in
damages.
Further speculation seems pointless.
> Sincerely,
> RJack
RJack
> In gnu.misc.discuss RJack <us...@example.net> wrote:
>> Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>
>
>>> I suggest you email all these lawyers to point out the fraud you
>>> allege.
>
>> I am quite busy with grandkids this week but I an aware of other's
>> efforts to do that very thing wrt the legal departments of the
>> fourteen corporate defendants.
>
> Hope you have a good week with the little terrors.
>
>> I suspect Erik Andersen has stepped on his weenie this time. All
>> charades have to end eventually. It's tough to have your bluff
>> called. Paying fourteen legal firms attorney fees because of a
>> fraudulent copyright claim could be very expensive.
>
> We shall see, in the fullness of time. However, it's not a
> fraudulent claim. It would appear that busybox's copyright has been
Huh??? "It would appear that busybox's copyright has been violated...".
Pray tell Alan, who is this mysterious copyright owner named "busybox"?
> If a case is dismissed on a technicality, that isn't fraud.
Nice try Alan. The "technicality" to which you speak is the United
States Copyright Act, Title 17 USC. This is the same tactic taken by
your anarchist mentors like RMS and Eben Moglen -- if it doesn't fit
your philosophy then it's just a legal "technicality".
>
> However, if your view of the case were accurate, the SFLC wouldn't
> have Started it in the first place.
Do you mean to say that an SFLC lawsuit is infallible?
************* ROLLING ON THE FLOOR LAUGHING *******************
The SFLC filed a whole series of federal lawsuits without any legal
standing to do so. When they realized they had no standing, a fraudulent
copyright registration was filed with the Copyright Office to remedy
their obvious ignorance of copyright practice in the Second Federal
Circuit. The SFLC will NEVER let one of their frivolous suits proceed to
trial. It's all SFLC bullshit propaganda. 'Nuff said.
> I suspect the usual thing will happen, there will be a settlement
> with each defendent involving it coming into compliance with the GPL,
> appointing a compliance officer, and paying an unspecified sum in
> damages.
>
> Further speculation seems pointless.
Ye Gads, Alan! Thank you, thank you. Admitting that what you are
claiming is SPECULATION is a first step towards atonement and spiritual
enlightenment!!!.
Sincerely,
RJack
Alan Mackenzie
> Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>> In gnu.misc.discuss RJack <us...@example.net> wrote:
>>> Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>> We shall see, in the fullness of time. However, it's not a
>> fraudulent claim. It would appear that busybox's copyright has been
>> violated, and Erik Andersen is a copyright holder. Huh????
>> If a case is dismissed on a technicality, that isn't fraud.
> Nice try Alan. The "technicality" to which you speak is the United
> States Copyright Act, Title 17 USC. This is the same tactic taken by
> your anarchist mentors like RMS and Eben Moglen -- if it doesn't fit
> your philosophy then it's just a legal "technicality".
Look, let's just wait and see, OK? You don't know the full particulars
of this case any more than I do. And you reckon your understanding of
USA copyright law exceeds Eben Moglen's, do you? If so, on what basis?
>> Further speculation seems pointless.
> Ye Gads, Alan! Thank you, thank you. Admitting that what you are
> claiming is SPECULATION is a first step towards atonement and spiritual
> enlightenment!!!.
I reckon you're doing the speculating. You're also very unsure of
yourself, otherwise you wouldn't be making such a song and dance about
it. I've said what my prediction is. You've said what yours is, namely
Erik Andersen and the SFLC will get blown out of court due to a
"fraudulent" claim and find themselves having to pay the bills of 14
companies' lawyers.
We shall see.
RJack
Uh... I predicted the suit will never reach a federal judge's eyes. A
voluntary dismissal before the SFLC can possibly be sanctioned is my
prediction.
Sincerely,
RJack
Hyman Rosen
> Uh... I predicted the suit will never reach a federal judge's eyes. A
> voluntary dismissal before the SFLC can possibly be sanctioned is my
> prediction.
Of course. And just like with Verizon, magical copies of GPLed
sources will start sprouting on the websites of the sued companies.
RJack
Yes! Sprouting on websites fertilized with the bullshit of Free Softies
like Hyman and Alan.
Sincerely,
Rjack