Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record - Linux

This is a discussion on Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record - Linux ; Hyman Rosen writes: > Alexander Terekhov wrote: >> Who is "we", Hyman? You're a speaker for ... > > I just thought I couldn't possibly be the only one. > Let's see if anyone else chimes in. > > Oh, ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 11 of 12 FirstFirst ... 9 10 11 12 LastLast
Results 201 to 220 of 230

Thread: Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record

  1. Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record

    Hyman Rosen writes:

    > Alexander Terekhov wrote:
    >> Who is "we", Hyman? You're a speaker for ...

    >
    > I just thought I couldn't possibly be the only one.
    > Let's see if anyone else chimes in.
    >
    > Oh, by the way, the J.K. Rowling decision should be
    > interesting (and dismaying) reading for GPL uber-
    > advocates who favor the FSF view that just looking
    > at GPL code funny makes something a derivative work.


    You got a bad case of slandries. Perhaps you should cut down on the
    Alexander dosage you are exhibiting yourself to.

    --
    David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

  2. Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record

    David Kastrup wrote:
    > You got a bad case of slandries.


    From ,
    quoting from the decision:

    By condensing, synthesizing, and reorganizing the preexisting
    material in an A-to-Z reference guide, the Lexicon does not
    recast the material in another medium to retell the story of
    Harry Potter, but instead gives the copyrighted material another
    purpose. That purpose is to give the reader a ready understanding
    of individual elements in the elaborate world of Harry Potter
    that appear in voluminous and diverse sources. As a result, the
    Lexicon no longer "represents [the] original work[s] of
    authorship." 17 U.S.C. § 101. Under these circumstances, and
    because the Lexicon does not fall under any example of derivative
    works listed in the statute, Plaintiffs have failed to show that
    the Lexicon is a derivative work.

    Look at this, and then tell me that a court will find that a program
    which dynamically links to a library is a derivative work of that
    library.

  3. Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record

    In article <8_Qxk.3001$dE1.2617@fe109.usenetserver.com>,
    Hyman Rosen wrote:
    > David Kastrup wrote:
    > > You got a bad case of slandries.

    >
    > From ,
    > quoting from the decision:
    >
    > By condensing, synthesizing, and reorganizing the preexisting
    > material in an A-to-Z reference guide, the Lexicon does not
    > recast the material in another medium to retell the story of
    > Harry Potter, but instead gives the copyrighted material another
    > purpose. That purpose is to give the reader a ready understanding
    > of individual elements in the elaborate world of Harry Potter
    > that appear in voluminous and diverse sources. As a result, the
    > Lexicon no longer "represents [the] original work[s] of
    > authorship." 17 U.S.C. § 101. Under these circumstances, and
    > because the Lexicon does not fall under any example of derivative
    > works listed in the statute, Plaintiffs have failed to show that
    > the Lexicon is a derivative work.
    >
    > Look at this, and then tell me that a court will find that a program
    > which dynamically links to a library is a derivative work of that
    > library.


    Or look at the unauthorized game cartridge cases. Those are directly on
    point for the "linking makes a derivative work" argument, and the courts
    have pretty uniformly decided that they are not derivative works.

    --
    --Tim Smith

  4. Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record

    Hyman Rosen writes:

    > David Kastrup wrote:
    >> You got a bad case of slandries.

    >
    > From ,
    > quoting from the decision:
    >
    > By condensing, synthesizing, and reorganizing the preexisting
    > material in an A-to-Z reference guide, the Lexicon does not
    > recast the material in another medium to retell the story of
    > Harry Potter, but instead gives the copyrighted material another
    > purpose. That purpose is to give the reader a ready understanding
    > of individual elements in the elaborate world of Harry Potter
    > that appear in voluminous and diverse sources. As a result, the
    > Lexicon no longer "represents [the] original work[s] of
    > authorship." 17 U.S.C. § 101. Under these circumstances, and
    > because the Lexicon does not fall under any example of derivative
    > works listed in the statute, Plaintiffs have failed to show that
    > the Lexicon is a derivative work.
    >
    > Look at this, and then tell me that a court will find that a program
    > which dynamically links to a library is a derivative work of that
    > library.


    Depends on what "a program" is (source code or the running executable
    assembled in memory as part of the regular operation), and how much it
    is structured to depend on that library.

    If you have, say, a language interpreter dynamically loaded where your
    program modifies its memory allocation and parsing semantics, it will be
    rather hard to declare the whole as independent.

    It is a grey area, certainly not sufficient for you to dish out abuse
    like "GPL uber-advocates who favor the FSF view that just looking at GPL
    code funny makes something a derivative work".

    If what you call the "FSF views" are solidly renounced in court with
    precedental cases, nobody but the FSF will be more glad. The purpose of
    the GPL is to create a code syllabus where most of copyright's
    strongholds are abolished, because you have to agree not to use their
    power before entering. If the GPL, and consequently copyright, can be
    proven not to have this power in the first place, so much the better.

    A world where the GPL has almost no power due to copyright licenses
    having almost no power, is certainly one that the FSF would embrace.
    Yes, there would the drawback of obfuscation/source secrecy. But it
    would probably be worth the price of being able to copy everything
    legally.

    --
    David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

  5. Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record

    Oh dear dak,

    [... "copyright's strongholds are abolished" ...]

    http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/copyri...community.html

    -----
    AM4: The problem with this change in the copyright laws for three would
    be that you wouldn't get the sources.

    RMS: Right. There would have also to be a condition, a law that to sell
    copies of the software to the public the source code must be deposited
    somewhere so that three years later it can be released. So it could be
    deposited say, with the library of congress in the US, and I think other
    countries have similar institutions where copies of published books get
    placed, and they could also received the source code and after three
    years, publish it. And of course, if the source code didn't correspond
    to the executable that would be fraud, and in fact if it really
    corresponds then they ought to be able to check that very easily when
    the work is published initially so you're publishing the source code and
    somebody there says alright “dot slash configure dot slash make” and
    sees if produces the same executables and uh.

    So you're right, just eliminating copyright would not make software
    free.

    AM5: Um libre

    RMS: Right.
    -----

    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.)

  6. Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record

    Alexander Terekhov writes:

    > Oh dear dak,
    >
    > [... "copyright's strongholds are abolished" ...]
    >
    > http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/copyri...community.html
    >
    > -----
    > AM4: The problem with this change in the copyright laws for three would
    > be that you wouldn't get the sources.
    >
    > RMS: Right. There would have also to be a condition, a law that to sell
    > copies of the software to the public the source code must be deposited
    > somewhere so that three years later it can be released. So it could be
    > deposited say, with the library of congress in the US, and I think other
    > countries have similar institutions where copies of published books get
    > placed, and they could also received the source code and after three
    > years, publish it. And of course, if the source code didn't correspond
    > to the executable that would be fraud, and in fact if it really
    > corresponds then they ought to be able to check that very easily when
    > the work is published initially so you're publishing the source code and
    > somebody there says alright “dot slash configure dot slash make” and
    > sees if produces the same executables and uh.
    >
    > So you're right, just eliminating copyright would not make software
    > free.
    >
    > AM5: Um libre
    >
    > RMS: Right.
    > -----
    >
    > LOL.


    Do you think the FSF would refuse to get a better world if it can't get
    a perfect world?

    --
    David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

  7. Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record

    David Kastrup wrote:
    > Depends on what "a program" is and how much it is structured to
    > depend on that library...
    > ...it will be rather hard to declare the whole as independent.


    I don't think you understand. It has nothing to do with a work
    being independent. For one thing, copyright law doesn't care if
    a program works or not. If I create a program attached to a
    fingerprint scanner which works only with your thumbprint, that
    does not make the program a derivative work of you.

    You need to read the statute (for U.S. law, anyway),
    :

    A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more
    preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement,
    dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound
    recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any
    other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or
    adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations,
    elaborations, or other modifications, which, as a whole,
    represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative work”.

    That's why I quoted from the Harry Potter decision. Although the
    Lexicon actually contained reams of text copied directly from other
    books, the judge found it not to be a derivative work based on the
    definition above.

    > It is a grey area, certainly not sufficient for you to dish out
    > abuse like "GPL uber-advocates who favor the FSF view that just
    > looking at GPL code funny makes something a derivative work".


    It's not gray at all, nor was my statement terribly abusive. The law
    is what it is. For a work to be derivative, it must be a transformation
    of an existing work into a different form but preserving the character
    of the original. A program which dynamically links to a library does
    not fit this definition - the program does not contain a transformed
    version of the library at all, especially while it is being distributed.
    For the FSF to continue maintaining otherwise (as they do in various
    places on their web sites) is at best disingenuous.

    > If what you call the "FSF views" are solidly renounced in court


    It is quite possible to be wrong for a very long time without being
    challenged about it in court. That doesn't make it any less wrong.

  8. Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record

    Hyman Rosen wrote:
    > David Kastrup wrote:
    >> Depends on what "a program" is and how much it is structured to
    > > depend on that library...
    >> ...it will be rather hard to declare the whole as independent.

    >
    > I don't think you understand. It has nothing to do with a work
    > being independent. For one thing, copyright law doesn't care if
    > a program works or not. If I create a program attached to a
    > fingerprint scanner which works only with your thumbprint, that
    > does not make the program a derivative work of you.
    >


    If you wish to speak of a derivative work of a computer program outside
    the context of the "Abstraction Filtration Comparison" test it won't
    make any legal sense. See Gates Rubber v. Bando Chemical, 9 F.3d 823, 28
    USPQ2d 1503 (10th Cir. 1993).

  9. Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record

    (Update.)

    Alexander Terekhov wrote:
    [...]
    > 1. Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice.
    > 2. Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice.
    > 3. Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice.
    > 4. Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice.
    > 5. Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice.


    6. DEFAULT JUDGMENT (defendants must send all their busybox-based boxes
    including the model MyShare HN1200 to SFLC for destruction). Eben Moglen
    triumphant. I gather that judge Harold Baer must have been reading
    Eben's "Anarchism Triumphant: Free Software and the Death of Copyright"
    and decided "not so fast"... if only he really had jurisdiction. 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.)

  10. Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record

    (Update.)

    Yet another delay...

    Alexander Terekhov wrote:
    >
    > Alexander Terekhov wrote:
    > >
    > > "Mailed notice to Register of Copyrights to report the filing of this
    > > action. (rdz) (Entered: 07/21/2008)"
    > >
    > > WOW!
    > >
    > > Am I blind or is the court's clerk got concerned regarding (missing)
    > > Registration of busybox copyright(s)?
    > >
    > > U.S. District Court
    > > United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
    > > (Foley Square)
    > > CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:08-cv-06426-PKC
    > >
    > > Anderson et al v. Extreme Networks, Inc.
    > > Assigned to: Judge P. Kevin Castel
    > > Cause: 17:501 Copyright Infringement
    > > Date Filed: 07/17/2008
    > > Jury Demand: None
    > > Nature of Suit: 820 Copyright
    > > Jurisdiction: Federal Question
    > >
    > > Plaintiff
    > >
    > > Erik Anderson
    > > an individual represented by Aaron Kyle Williamson
    > > Software Freedom Law Center, Inc
    > > 1995 Broadway, 17th Fl.
    > > New York, NY 10023
    > > 212 580 0800
    > > Fax: (212)-580-0898
    > > Email: aaronw@softwarefreedom.org
    > > LEAD ATTORNEY
    > > ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
    > >
    > > Daniel Ben Ravicher
    > > Software Freedom Law Center, Inc
    > > 1995 Broadway, 17th Fl.
    > > New York, NY 10023
    > > (212)-580-0800
    > > Fax: (212)-580-0898
    > > Email: ravicher@softwarefreedom.org
    > > LEAD ATTORNEY
    > > ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
    > >
    > > Plaintiff
    > >
    > > Rob Landley
    > > an individual represented by Aaron Kyle Williamson
    > > (See above for address)
    > > LEAD ATTORNEY
    > > ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
    > >
    > > Daniel Ben Ravicher
    > > (See above for address)
    > > LEAD ATTORNEY
    > > ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
    > >
    > >
    > > V.
    > >
    > > Defendant
    > > Extreme Networks, Inc.
    > > a California Corporation
    > >
    > >
    > > Date Filed # Docket Text
    > > 07/17/2008 1 COMPLAINT against Extreme Networks, Inc.. (Filing Fee $
    > > 350.00, Receipt Number 657053)Document filed by Erik Anderson, Rob
    > > Landley.(rdz) (Entered: 07/21/2008)
    > > 07/17/2008 SUMMONS ISSUED as to Extreme Networks, Inc.. (rdz)
    > > (Entered: 07/21/2008)
    > > 07/17/2008 Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck is so designated. (rdz)
    > > (Entered: 07/21/2008)
    > > 07/17/2008 Case Designated ECF. (rdz) (Entered: 07/21/2008)
    > > 07/21/2008 Mailed notice to Register of Copyrights to report the
    > > filing of this action. (rdz) (Entered: 07/21/2008)
    > > 07/23/2008 2 ORDER SCHEDULING INITIAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE: Initial
    > > Conference set for 9/12/2008 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom 12C, 500 Pearl
    > > Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge P. Kevin Castel. (Signed by
    > > Judge P. Kevin Castel on 7/23/08) (tro) (Entered: 07/23/2008)

    >
    > 07/31/2008 3 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE. Extreme Networks, Inc. served on
    > 7/22/2008, answer due 8/11/2008. Service was accepted by Perla Ibarra,
    > Receptionist. Document filed by Erik Anderson; Rob Landley. (Williamson,
    > Aaron) (Entered: 07/31/2008)
    > 08/08/2008 4 ORDER TO EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDANT TO FILE ANSWER,
    > defendant Extreme Networks has until 9/5/08 to answer the complaint.
    > Extreme Networks, Inc. answer due 7/17/2008. (Signed by Judge P. Kevin
    > Castel on 8/7/08) (cd) (Entered: 08/08/2008)
    > 08/25/2008 5 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge P. Kevin Castel from
    > Daniel B. Ravicher dated 8/21/08 re: Counsel requests an adjournment of
    > the pretrial conference currently scheduled for September 12, 2008, to
    > another date at the courts earliest convenience. ENDORSEMENT: The
    > initial pretrial conference is adjourned to October 3, 2008 at 12:45
    > p.m., ( Initial Conference set for 10/3/2008 at 12:45 PM before Judge P.
    > Kevin Castel.) (Signed by Judge P. Kevin Castel on 8/25/08) (mme)
    > (Entered: 08/25/2008)
    > 09/04/2008 6 ORDER TO EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDANT TO FILE ANSWER, Extreme
    > Networks, Inc. answer due 9/19/2008. (Signed by Judge P. Kevin Castel on
    > 9/4/08) (cd) (Entered: 09/04/2008)


    09/18/2008 7 ORDER TO EXTEND TIE FOR DEFENDANT TO FILE ANSWER, IT IS
    HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Extreme Networks, Inc. has until October
    3, 2008 to answer the complaint filed on July 17, 2006 by Plaintiffs
    Erik Anderson and Rob Landley.Extreme Networks, Inc. answer due
    10/3/2008. (Signed by Judge P. Kevin Castel on 9/18/08) (mme) (Entered:
    09/18/2008)

    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.)

  11. Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record

    (Update.)

    Wah wah, yet another delay, letter from Dan Ravicher.

    Alexander Terekhov wrote:
    >
    > (Update.)
    >
    > Yet another delay...
    >
    > Alexander Terekhov wrote:
    > >
    > > Alexander Terekhov wrote:
    > > >
    > > > "Mailed notice to Register of Copyrights to report the filing of this
    > > > action. (rdz) (Entered: 07/21/2008)"
    > > >
    > > > WOW!
    > > >
    > > > Am I blind or is the court's clerk got concerned regarding (missing)
    > > > Registration of busybox copyright(s)?
    > > >
    > > > U.S. District Court
    > > > United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
    > > > (Foley Square)
    > > > CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:08-cv-06426-PKC
    > > >
    > > > Anderson et al v. Extreme Networks, Inc.
    > > > Assigned to: Judge P. Kevin Castel
    > > > Cause: 17:501 Copyright Infringement
    > > > Date Filed: 07/17/2008
    > > > Jury Demand: None
    > > > Nature of Suit: 820 Copyright
    > > > Jurisdiction: Federal Question
    > > >
    > > > Plaintiff
    > > >
    > > > Erik Anderson
    > > > an individual represented by Aaron Kyle Williamson
    > > > Software Freedom Law Center, Inc
    > > > 1995 Broadway, 17th Fl.
    > > > New York, NY 10023
    > > > 212 580 0800
    > > > Fax: (212)-580-0898
    > > > Email: aaronw@softwarefreedom.org
    > > > LEAD ATTORNEY
    > > > ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
    > > >
    > > > Daniel Ben Ravicher
    > > > Software Freedom Law Center, Inc
    > > > 1995 Broadway, 17th Fl.
    > > > New York, NY 10023
    > > > (212)-580-0800
    > > > Fax: (212)-580-0898
    > > > Email: ravicher@softwarefreedom.org
    > > > LEAD ATTORNEY
    > > > ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
    > > >
    > > > Plaintiff
    > > >
    > > > Rob Landley
    > > > an individual represented by Aaron Kyle Williamson
    > > > (See above for address)
    > > > LEAD ATTORNEY
    > > > ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
    > > >
    > > > Daniel Ben Ravicher
    > > > (See above for address)
    > > > LEAD ATTORNEY
    > > > ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > V.
    > > >
    > > > Defendant
    > > > Extreme Networks, Inc.
    > > > a California Corporation
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > Date Filed # Docket Text
    > > > 07/17/2008 1 COMPLAINT against Extreme Networks, Inc.. (Filing Fee $
    > > > 350.00, Receipt Number 657053)Document filed by Erik Anderson, Rob
    > > > Landley.(rdz) (Entered: 07/21/2008)
    > > > 07/17/2008 SUMMONS ISSUED as to Extreme Networks, Inc.. (rdz)
    > > > (Entered: 07/21/2008)
    > > > 07/17/2008 Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck is so designated. (rdz)
    > > > (Entered: 07/21/2008)
    > > > 07/17/2008 Case Designated ECF. (rdz) (Entered: 07/21/2008)
    > > > 07/21/2008 Mailed notice to Register of Copyrights to report the
    > > > filing of this action. (rdz) (Entered: 07/21/2008)
    > > > 07/23/2008 2 ORDER SCHEDULING INITIAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE: Initial
    > > > Conference set for 9/12/2008 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom 12C, 500 Pearl
    > > > Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge P. Kevin Castel. (Signed by
    > > > Judge P. Kevin Castel on 7/23/08) (tro) (Entered: 07/23/2008)

    > >
    > > 07/31/2008 3 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE. Extreme Networks, Inc. served on
    > > 7/22/2008, answer due 8/11/2008. Service was accepted by Perla Ibarra,
    > > Receptionist. Document filed by Erik Anderson; Rob Landley. (Williamson,
    > > Aaron) (Entered: 07/31/2008)
    > > 08/08/2008 4 ORDER TO EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDANT TO FILE ANSWER,
    > > defendant Extreme Networks has until 9/5/08 to answer the complaint.
    > > Extreme Networks, Inc. answer due 7/17/2008. (Signed by Judge P. Kevin
    > > Castel on 8/7/08) (cd) (Entered: 08/08/2008)
    > > 08/25/2008 5 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge P. Kevin Castel from
    > > Daniel B. Ravicher dated 8/21/08 re: Counsel requests an adjournment of
    > > the pretrial conference currently scheduled for September 12, 2008, to
    > > another date at the courts earliest convenience. ENDORSEMENT: The
    > > initial pretrial conference is adjourned to October 3, 2008 at 12:45
    > > p.m., ( Initial Conference set for 10/3/2008 at 12:45 PM before Judge P.
    > > Kevin Castel.) (Signed by Judge P. Kevin Castel on 8/25/08) (mme)
    > > (Entered: 08/25/2008)
    > > 09/04/2008 6 ORDER TO EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDANT TO FILE ANSWER, Extreme
    > > Networks, Inc. answer due 9/19/2008. (Signed by Judge P. Kevin Castel on
    > > 9/4/08) (cd) (Entered: 09/04/2008)

    >
    > 09/18/2008 7 ORDER TO EXTEND TIE FOR DEFENDANT TO FILE ANSWER, IT IS
    > HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Extreme Networks, Inc. has until October
    > 3, 2008 to answer the complaint filed on July 17, 2006 by Plaintiffs
    > Erik Anderson and Rob Landley.Extreme Networks, Inc. answer due
    > 10/3/2008. (Signed by Judge P. Kevin Castel on 9/18/08) (mme) (Entered:
    > 09/18/2008)


    09/26/2008 8 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge P. Kevin Castel from
    Daniel Ravicher dated 9/25/08 re: Request for an adjournment of the
    pretrial conference set for 10/3/08. ENDORSEMENT: Conference adjourned
    from 10/3/08 to 11/7/08 at 2:45 pm. ( Pretrial Conference reset for
    11/7/2008 at 02:45 PM before Judge P. Kevin Castel.) (Signed by Judge P.
    Kevin Castel on 9/26/08) (cd) (Entered: 09/26/2008)

    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.)

  12. Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record

    (Update.)

    > > 1. Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice.
    > > 2. Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice.
    > > 3. Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice.
    > > 4. Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice.
    > > 5. Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice.

    >
    > 6. DEFAULT JUDGMENT


    7. DEFAULT JUDGMENT "opened", first ever answer to the GPL complaint
    interposed and "served forthwith":

    ------
    10/06/2008 13 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Harold Baer from Lynn
    M. Marvin dated 9/25/08 re: Counsel writes to send in courtesy copies of
    defendants motion to lift entry of default judgment and interpose an
    answer. Counsel also writes to advise the court that plaintiffs are not
    opposing this motion; therefore the motion is fully briefed.
    ENDORSEMENT: The defendant has met the elements required to open the
    default. The default is opened and the answer attached to the memo of
    law will be served forthwith and a PTC is scheduled for October 16, 2008
    at 3:00 P.M. Please agree on a pretrial scheduling order if at all
    possible. This case already has at least the beginning of whiskers., (
    Pretrial Conference set for 10/16/2008 at 03:00 PM before Judge Harold
    Baer.) (Signed by Judge Harold Baer on 10/5/08) (mme) (Entered:
    10/06/2008)

    10/06/2008 14 ANSWER to Complaint. Document filed by Bell Microproducts,
    Inc..(Marvin, Lynn) (Entered: 10/06/2008)
    ------

    http://www.terekhov.de/14.pdf

    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.)

  13. Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record

    Interesting...

    10/14/2008 15 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Harold Baer from
    Daniel B. Ravicher dated 10/7/08 re: Counsel requests an adjournment of
    the pre-trial conference currently scheduled for October 16, 2008, at
    3:00 PM, to either October 23 or 24 or another date not prior to
    November 3, 2008. ENDORSEMENT: Sorry this is the best I can do will not
    be here between 10/23 and 11/3 see you on 10/16. (Signed by Judge Harold
    Baer on 10/13/08) (mme) (Entered: 10/14/2008)

    http://www.terekhov.de/15.pdf

    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.)

  14. Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record

    Ha ha. Yet another GPL 'victory' in court:

    10/17/2008 16 NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL Pursuant to Rule
    41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the plaintiff(s)
    and or their counsel(s), hereby give notice that the above-captioned
    action is voluntarily dismissed without prejudice and without costs
    against the defendant(s) Bell Microproducts, Inc., D.B.A. Hammer
    Storage. ENDORSEMENT: The Clerk is instructed to close the case and
    remove it from my docket. (Signed by Judge Harold Baer on 10/17/08)
    (tro) (Entered: 10/17/2008)

    Where is the press release?

    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.)

  15. Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record

    On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 12:33:37 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

    > Ha ha. Yet another GPL 'victory' in court:
    >
    > 10/17/2008 16 NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL Pursuant to Rule
    > 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the plaintiff(s)
    > and or their counsel(s), hereby give notice that the above-captioned
    > action is voluntarily dismissed without prejudice and without costs
    > against the defendant(s) Bell Microproducts, Inc., D.B.A. Hammer
    > Storage. ENDORSEMENT: The Clerk is instructed to close the case and
    > remove it from my docket. (Signed by Judge Harold Baer on 10/17/08)
    > (tro) (Entered: 10/17/2008)
    >
    > Where is the press release?
    >
    > regards,
    > alexander.


    Schestowitz must have *missed* that one.

    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
    Please Visit www.linsux.org

  16. Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record

    Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
    > On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 12:33:37 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
    >
    >> Ha ha. Yet another GPL 'victory' in court:
    >>
    >> 10/17/2008 16 NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL Pursuant to Rule
    >> 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the plaintiff(s)
    >> and or their counsel(s), hereby give notice that the above-captioned
    >> action is voluntarily dismissed without prejudice and without costs
    >> against the defendant(s) Bell Microproducts, Inc., D.B.A. Hammer
    >> Storage. ENDORSEMENT: The Clerk is instructed to close the case and
    >> remove it from my docket. (Signed by Judge Harold Baer on 10/17/08)
    >> (tro) (Entered: 10/17/2008)
    >>
    >> Where is the press release?
    >>
    >> regards,
    >> alexander.

    >
    > Schestowitz must have *missed* that one.



    >> action is voluntarily dismissed without prejudice and without costs
    >> against the defendant(s) Bell Microproducts, Inc.


    Without costs?? WITHOUT COSTS?? Hmmmm... musta' been in a hurry.

    "41(a)(1)(A)(i) a notice of dismissal before the opposing party
    serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment; or
    (ii) a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have
    appeared."

    Hmmmm... "[B]efore the opposing party serves either an answer...".

    Confused magistrate judge?

    Sincerely,
    Rjack

  17. Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record

    Alexander Terekhov wrote:
    > Ha ha. Yet another GPL 'victory' in court:
    > ... D.B.A. Hammer Storage....




    As usual, the defendants have come into compliance with the
    GPL, so there is no reason to continue the case. As usual,
    this is a victory which does not require scare quotes.

  18. Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record


    Hyman Rosen wrote:
    >
    > Alexander Terekhov wrote:
    > > Ha ha. Yet another GPL 'victory' in court:
    > > ... D.B.A. Hammer Storage....

    >
    >


    That page is ages old and predates the SFLC's motion for default
    judgment (default was set aside later).

    How do you explain continued 'litigation' by the SFLC for many month
    after availability of the source code from Hammer Storage site, 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.)

  19. Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record

    He he. Yet another VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL:

    10/20/2008 10 NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)
    of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the plaintiff(s) and or their
    counsel(s), hereby give notice that the above-captioned action is
    voluntarily dismissed without prejudice, and without costs against the
    defendant(s) Extreme Networks, Inc. (Signed by Judge P. Kevin Castel on
    10/20/08) (db) (Entered: 10/20/2008)

    Where is the press release?

    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.)

  20. Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record

    Alexander Terekhov wrote:
    > How do you explain continued 'litigation' by the SFLC for many month
    > after availability of the source code from Hammer Storage site, Hyman?


    The same way I always do. Legal processes are slow. They work
    through exchanges of papers filed with courts, with negotiations
    between lawyers, and with meetings before judges. Even a simple
    exchange of views can take weeks. So when a company decides to
    come into compliance with the GPL, they can do that relatively
    quickly, more quickly than all of the legal machinery can be
    deactivated. Also, having the source code available before the
    case ends means that the SFLC can verify that the defendants
    are in fact properly compliant with the GPL.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 11 of 12 FirstFirst ... 9 10 11 12 LastLast