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

This is a discussion on Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record - Linux ; And another Voluntary Dismissal. Did I just miss the announcement of out-of-court settlement "surrender" by defendants this time (with SFLC "agreeing" to reinstate defendant's lost rights LOL)... anyone? U.S. District Court United States District Court for the Southern District of ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 12 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 230

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

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

    And another Voluntary Dismissal. Did I just miss the announcement of
    out-of-court settlement "surrender" by defendants this time (with SFLC
    "agreeing" to reinstate defendant's lost rights LOL)... anyone?

    U.S. District Court
    United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
    (Foley Square)
    CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:07-cv-10456-LBS

    Andersen et al v. High-Antennas, L.L.C.
    Assigned to: Judge Leonard B. Sand
    Cause: 17:501 Copyright Infringement
    Date Filed: 11/19/2007
    Date Terminated: 03/03/2008
    Jury Demand: None
    Nature of Suit: 820 Copyright
    Jurisdiction: Federal Question

    03/03/2008 5 NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL. Plaintiffs Erik Anderson
    and Rob Landley hereby dismiss this action against defendant High-Gain
    Antennas, LLC without prejudice, and without costs to any party. SO
    ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Leonard B. Sand on 3/3/08) (jw) (Entered:
    03/03/2008)

    Alexander Terekhov wrote:
    >
    > Another Voluntary Dismissal.
    >
    > U.S. District Court
    > United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
    > (Foley Square)
    > CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:07-cv-10455-PKC
    >
    > Andersen et al v. Xterasys Corporation
    > Assigned to: Judge P. Kevin Castel
    > Cause: 17:501 Copyright Infringement
    > Date Filed: 11/19/2007
    > Date Terminated: 12/17/2007
    > Jury Demand: None
    > Nature of Suit: 820 Copyright
    > Jurisdiction: Federal Question
    >
    > 12/17/2007 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1) of
    > the F.R.C.P. WITHOUT PREJUDICE and without costs to any party. (Signed
    > by Judge P. Kevin Castel on 12/17/07) (db) (Entered: 12/18/2007)
    >
    > Alexander Terekhov wrote:
    > >
    > > U.S. District Court
    > > United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
    > > (Foley Square)
    > > CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:07-cv-08205-LAP
    > >
    > > Andersen et al v. Monsoon Multimedia, Inc.
    > > Assigned to: Judge Loretta A. Preska
    > > Cause: 17:501 Copyright Infringement
    > > Date Filed: 09/19/2007
    > > Date Terminated: 11/30/2007
    > > Jury Demand: None
    > > Nature of Suit: 820 Copyright
    > > Jurisdiction: Federal Question
    > >
    > > 11/30/2007 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1) of
    > > the F.R.C.P.: Plaintiffs hereby dismiss this action against defendants
    > > without prejudice and without costs to any party. (Signed by Judge
    > > Loretta A. Preska on 11/29/07) (tro) (Entered: 11/30/2007)


    regards,
    alexander.

    --
    "12/21/2007 ORDER TO EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDANT...
    01/22/2008 ORDER TO EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDANT...
    02/19/2008 ORDER TO EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDAT(sic)...
    02/26/2008 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Laura Taylor Swain from
    Daniel B. Ravicher...
    02/27/2008 ORDER that Defendants Verizon Communications, Inc. has
    until March 14, 2008..."

    -- 1:07-cv-11070-LTS aka Never Beginning "GPL Enforcement" case

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

    Alexander Terekhov wrote:
    > And another Voluntary Dismissal. Did I just miss the announcement of
    > out-of-court settlement "surrender" by defendants this time (with SFLC
    > "agreeing" to reinstate defendant's lost rights LOL)... anyone?
    >


    With "open source" attorney Jason Haislmaier representing High-Gain
    Antennas, what other outcome would you have expected?

    From http://www.internetnews.com/ent-news...le.php/3718161
    we can see:

    [begin quote]
    From a legal point of view, a company's responsibility when it comes to
    open source software usage is quite clear. Jason Haislmaier an attorney
    with Holme Roberts and Owen LLP is right in the thick of things when it
    comes to compliance. He is the attorney representing High-Gain Antennas,
    one of the defendants in the BusyBox suits. Haislmaier's prefaced his
    comments by noting that he is not commenting specifically on that case.

    "The bottom line is that companies need to understand their use of open
    source software and make each use of open source a knowing and compliant
    use," Haislmaier said. "This starts with implementing and maintaining an
    open source compliance program to help understand when and where open
    source is in use in your company so that you can take the proper steps
    to comply with the open source licenses applicable to that software."
    [end quote]

    You haven't heard Verizon's defense attorneys spouting open source
    platitudes before their client's Answer has even been filed.

    Sincerely,
    Rjack













    > U.S. District Court
    > United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
    > (Foley Square)
    > CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:07-cv-10456-LBS
    >
    > Andersen et al v. High-Antennas, L.L.C.
    > Assigned to: Judge Leonard B. Sand
    > Cause: 17:501 Copyright Infringement
    > Date Filed: 11/19/2007
    > Date Terminated: 03/03/2008
    > Jury Demand: None
    > Nature of Suit: 820 Copyright
    > Jurisdiction: Federal Question
    >
    > 03/03/2008 5 NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL. Plaintiffs Erik Anderson
    > and Rob Landley hereby dismiss this action against defendant High-Gain
    > Antennas, LLC without prejudice, and without costs to any party. SO
    > ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Leonard B. Sand on 3/3/08) (jw) (Entered:
    > 03/03/2008)
    >
    > Alexander Terekhov wrote:
    >> Another Voluntary Dismissal.
    >>
    >> U.S. District Court
    >> United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
    >> (Foley Square)
    >> CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:07-cv-10455-PKC
    >>
    >> Andersen et al v. Xterasys Corporation
    >> Assigned to: Judge P. Kevin Castel
    >> Cause: 17:501 Copyright Infringement
    >> Date Filed: 11/19/2007
    >> Date Terminated: 12/17/2007
    >> Jury Demand: None
    >> Nature of Suit: 820 Copyright
    >> Jurisdiction: Federal Question
    >>
    >> 12/17/2007 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1) of
    >> the F.R.C.P. WITHOUT PREJUDICE and without costs to any party. (Signed
    >> by Judge P. Kevin Castel on 12/17/07) (db) (Entered: 12/18/2007)
    >>
    >> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
    >>> U.S. District Court
    >>> United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
    >>> (Foley Square)
    >>> CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:07-cv-08205-LAP
    >>>
    >>> Andersen et al v. Monsoon Multimedia, Inc.
    >>> Assigned to: Judge Loretta A. Preska
    >>> Cause: 17:501 Copyright Infringement
    >>> Date Filed: 09/19/2007
    >>> Date Terminated: 11/30/2007
    >>> Jury Demand: None
    >>> Nature of Suit: 820 Copyright
    >>> Jurisdiction: Federal Question
    >>>
    >>> 11/30/2007 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1) of
    >>> the F.R.C.P.: Plaintiffs hereby dismiss this action against defendants
    >>> without prejudice and without costs to any party. (Signed by Judge
    >>> Loretta A. Preska on 11/29/07) (tro) (Entered: 11/30/2007)

    >
    > regards,
    > alexander.
    >
    > --
    > "12/21/2007 ORDER TO EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDANT...
    > 01/22/2008 ORDER TO EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDANT...
    > 02/19/2008 ORDER TO EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDAT(sic)...
    > 02/26/2008 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Laura Taylor Swain from
    > Daniel B. Ravicher...
    > 02/27/2008 ORDER that Defendants Verizon Communications, Inc. has
    > until March 14, 2008..."
    >
    > -- 1:07-cv-11070-LTS aka Never Beginning "GPL Enforcement" case


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

    Hilarious.

    http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/...sybox-verizon/

    As if they've sued that tiny Actiontec and not Verizon...

    I also notice that Verizon has made no changes at all regarding

    http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/...ox/verizon.pdf

    "Upon information and belief, Verizon distributes to its customers the
    Actiontec MI424WR wireless router (“Infringing Product”), which contains
    embedded executable software (“Firmware”). Defendant also provides the
    Firmware corresponding to the Infringing Product for download via its
    website, at http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp."

    Still no word about the GPL and/or source code.

    So much about the "power" of the GNU GPL.

    regards,
    alexander.

    --
    http://linuxtaliban.com/bilder.htm

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

    On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 18:51:31 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

    > Hilarious.
    >
    > http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/...sybox-verizon/
    >
    > As if they've sued that tiny Actiontec and not Verizon...
    >
    > I also notice that Verizon has made no changes at all regarding
    >
    > http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/...ox/verizon.pdf
    >
    > "Upon information and belief, Verizon distributes to its customers the
    > Actiontec MI424WR wireless router (“Infringing Product”), which contains
    > embedded executable software (“Firmware”). Defendant also provides the
    > Firmware corresponding to the Infringing Product for download via its
    > website, at http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp."
    >
    > Still no word about the GPL and/or source code.
    >
    > So much about the "power" of the GNU GPL.
    >
    > regards,
    > alexander.


    The problem with the GNU GPL is that it is so confusing that the people
    making decisions are leery of using Open Source code because they can't
    determine positively what the impact, if any, could be to their business.

    Some of this is due to confusion and misunderstanding of the GPL, but
    that's really the point.


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

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

    Moshe Goldfarb writes:

    >The problem with the GNU GPL is that it is so confusing that the people
    >making decisions are leery of using Open Source code because they can't
    >determine positively what the impact, if any, could be to their
    >business.


    >Some of this is due to confusion and misunderstanding of the GPL, but
    >that's really the point.


    After they get caught violating the license they often plead
    misunderstanding and confusion. :-)
    --
    Rahul
    http://rahul.rahul.net/

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

    On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 18:40:59 +0000 (UTC), Rahul Dhesi wrote:

    > Moshe Goldfarb writes:
    >
    >>The problem with the GNU GPL is that it is so confusing that the people
    >>making decisions are leery of using Open Source code because they can't
    >>determine positively what the impact, if any, could be to their
    >>business.

    >
    >>Some of this is due to confusion and misunderstanding of the GPL, but
    >>that's really the point.

    >
    > After they get caught violating the license they often plead
    > misunderstanding and confusion. :-)


    Judge: "This is insanity!"
    Plaintiff "Exactly what we are pleading your honor!"


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

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

    Rahul Dhesi wrote:
    > Moshe Goldfarb writes:
    >
    >> The problem with the GNU GPL is that it is so confusing that the people
    >> making decisions are leery of using Open Source code because they can't
    >> determine positively what the impact, if any, could be to their
    >> business.

    >
    >> Some of this is due to confusion and misunderstanding of the GPL, but
    >> that's really the point.

    >
    > After they get caught violating the license they often plead
    > misunderstanding and confusion. :-)


    After "they" (think Verizon) get "caught" they tell the SFLC (Software
    Fictional Licensing Center) to kiss their royal ass and SFLC quickly
    volunteers to dismiss the lawsuit without prejudice and then claims
    "victory" over some third party non-defendant.

    Sincerely,
    Rjack

    -- Licenses are not contracts: the work's user is obliged to remain
    within the bounds of the license not because she voluntarily promised,
    but because she doesn't have any right to act at all except as the
    license permits. -- Eben Moglen founder of the SFLC

    -- "Although the United States Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ 101- 1332,
    grants exclusive jurisdiction for infringement claims to the federal
    courts, those courts construe copyrights as contracts and turn to the
    relevant state law to interpret them."; Automation by Design, Inc. v.
    Raybestos Products Co., 463 F.3d 749, (United States Court of Appeals
    for the Seventh Circuit 2006) --



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

    On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 15:03:58 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb wrote:

    > On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 18:40:59 +0000 (UTC), Rahul Dhesi wrote:
    >
    >> Moshe Goldfarb writes:
    >>
    >>>The problem with the GNU GPL is that it is so confusing that the people
    >>>making decisions are leery of using Open Source code because they can't
    >>>determine positively what the impact, if any, could be to their
    >>>business.

    >>
    >>>Some of this is due to confusion and misunderstanding of the GPL, but
    >>>that's really the point.

    >>
    >> After they get caught violating the license they often plead
    >> misunderstanding and confusion. :-)

    >
    > Judge: "This is insanity!"
    > Plaintiff "Exactly what we are pleading your honor!"


    Make that defendant.

    Duhhhhh...I'm having a moment!


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

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


    rjack wrote:
    [...]
    > After "they" (think Verizon) get "caught" they tell the SFLC (Software
    > Fictional Licensing Center) to kiss their royal ass and SFLC quickly
    > volunteers to dismiss the lawsuit without prejudice and then claims
    > "victory" over some third party non-defendant.


    According to eWeek's Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols, aka "King of the
    Freetards,"
    (http://fakesteve.blogspot.com/2007/1...opying-by.html
    LOL)

    http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS2614635569.html

    "For decades, almost no one challenged the General Public License in
    legal matters. In fact, no one has even dared to try to break it in
    court. That record remains unsullied as the biggest company to
    date--Verizon--that had been accused of a GPL violation opted to settle
    out of court.

    The Software Freedom Law Center filed a copyright infringement lawsuit
    on Dec. 6 against Verizon Communications on behalf of its clients, the
    two principal developers of BusyBox. The suit alleged that Verizon
    violated the GNU GPLv2 by distributing Actiontec MI424WR wireless
    routers--which contained unsanctioned GPLv2 code--that were used with
    Verizon's fiber-optic Internet and television service, aka FiOS.

    On March 17, the SFLC announced that Verizon has come to an agreement
    with the SFLC and the BusyBox developers, which enables them to dismiss
    the GPL enforcement lawsuit."

    ROFL!

    regards,
    alexander.

    --
    http://linuxtaliban.com/bilder.htm

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

    ROFL!!!

    http://lwn.net/Articles/273618/

    From: Jim Garrison
    To: pr-AT-lwn.net
    Subject: BusyBox Developers Agree To End GPL Lawsuit Against Verizon
    Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 11:00:09 -0400
    Message-ID: <47DE8779.5080907@softwarefreedom.org>


    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

    BusyBox Developers Agree To End GPL Lawsuit Against Verizon

    Good Faith Discussions Result in Dismissal of Copyright Infringement
    Case

    NEW YORK, March 17, 2008 -- The Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC)
    today announced that agreements have been reached to dismiss the GPL
    enforcement lawsuit filed by SFLC against Verizon Communications
    Inc. on behalf of two principal developers of BusyBox. Verizon
    distributes BusyBox to its FiOS customers in devices that are provided
    to Verizon by Actiontec Electronics, Inc.

    BusyBox is a lightweight set of standard Unix utilities commonly used
    in embedded systems and is open source software licensed under GNU
    General Public License (GPL) version 2. One of the conditions of the
    GPL is that re-distributors of BusyBox are required to ensure that
    each downstream recipient is provided access to the source code of the
    program.

    As a result of the plaintiffs agreeing to dismiss the lawsuit and
    reinstate Actiontec's and its customer's rights to distribute BusyBox
    under the GPL, Actiontec has agreed to appoint an Open Source
    Compliance Officer within its organization to monitor and ensure GPL
    compliance, to publish the source code for the version of BusyBox it
    previously distributed on its Web site, and to undertake substantial
    efforts to notify previous recipients of BusyBox from Actiontec and
    its customers, including Verizon, of their rights to the software
    under the GPL. The settlement also includes an undisclosed amount of
    financial consideration paid to the plaintiffs by Actiontec.

    "We are happy to have settled this matter in a way that upholds the
    GPL and the interests of our clients," said Dan Ravicher, Legal
    Director of SFLC.

    "Actiontec takes great pride in providing innovative, quality products
    to its customers, while respecting the intellectual property rights of
    third parties," said Dean Chang, Actiontec's President and CEO. "We
    appreciate the value of the technological contributions of the open
    source community, and look forward with renewed commitment to working
    cooperatively with them."

    The lawsuit, "Erik Andersen and Rob Landley v. Verizon Communications
    Inc." case number 1:07-cv-11070-LTS, was filed December 6th, 2007, in
    the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
    York.

    About the Software Freedom Law Center

    The Software Freedom Law Center -- directed by Eben Moglen, one of the
    world's leading experts on copyright law as applied to software --
    provides legal representation and other law-related services to
    protect and advance Free and Open Source Software. The Law Center is
    dedicated to assisting non-profit open source developers and projects.
    Visit SFLC at http://www.softwarefreedom.org.

    About Actiontec Electronics, Inc.

    Actiontec Electronics develops broadband connectivity and
    broadband-powered solutions that simplify and enrich the digital life
    -- delivering a unified experience that encompasses communications,
    entertainment, home management, and more. Actiontec offerings range
    from the market's broadest selection of IPTV-capable broadband home
    gateways for bringing IP-based video services into the home, to DSL
    modems, wireless networking devices, routers and digital entertainment
    devices. The company's carrier-class products are easy to install,
    manage, and use, and are sold through retail channels and broadband
    service providers. Founded in 1993, Actiontec is headquartered in
    Sunnyvale, CA, and maintains branch offices in Colorado Springs, CO;
    Basingstoke, United Kingdom; Shanghai, China; and Taipei, Taiwan. For
    more information, call 408-752-7700 or visit http://www.actiontec.com.

    Media contacts:

    Jim Garrison
    Public Relations Coordinator
    Software Freedom Law Center
    +1-212-461-1910
    garrison@softwarefreedom.org

    Lesley Kirchman
    Director of Corporate Marketing
    Actiontec Electronics
    408-548-4849
    ljkirchman@actiontec.com

    ###


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    (Log in to post comments)

    Apparently, Verizon wasn't distributing?
    Posted Mar 17, 2008 17:21 UTC (Mon) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270)

    At the time the suit was announced, there was a lot of discussion (here
    and in Groklaw) about whether Verizon actually was subject to GPL terms
    or not - whether they were distributing the software, or simply
    selling/renting boxes that contained software that Actiontec was the
    distributor for.

    The text of the announcement seems to imply, by omission, that it was
    not - no mention was made of Verizon having agreed to do anything
    differently.


    Actiontec source distribution
    Posted Mar 17, 2008 18:58 UTC (Mon) by salvarsan (subscriber, #18257)

    Here:
    http://opensource.actiontec.com/index.html

    Actiontec's compliance started on a Friday two months ago.

    Perhaps this late settlement suggests that Actiontec, despite their
    eventual compliance, took no responsibility and referred all legal
    action to Verizon.

    -

    regards,
    alexander.

    --
    http://linuxtaliban.com/bilder.htm

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

    Just to recap, here's Initial Conference Order, Plaintiffs (*note: not
    Defendant*) letter asking for delay (delay was granted), and official
    notice of voluntary dismissal (followed by the entire docket).

    http://www.terekhov.de/GPLvVerizon/I...ENCE_ORDER.pdf
    http://www.terekhov.de/GPLvVerizon/SFLC_LETTER.pdf
    http://www.terekhov.de/GPLvVerizon/V..._DISMISSAL.pdf

    U.S. District Court
    United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
    (Foley Square)
    CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:07-cv-11070-LTS

    Andersen et al v. Verizon Communications, Inc.
    Assigned to: Judge Laura Taylor Swain
    Cause: 17:501 Copyright Infringement
    Date Filed: 12/06/2007
    Date Terminated: 03/17/2008
    Jury Demand: None
    Nature of Suit: 820 Copyright
    Jurisdiction: Federal Question

    Plaintiff
    Erik Andersen
    an individual represented by 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 represented by Daniel Ben Ravicher
    (See above for address)
    LEAD ATTORNEY
    ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED


    V.

    Defendant
    Verizon Communications, Inc.
    a Delaware corporation

    Date Filed # Docket Text

    12/06/2007 1 COMPLAINT against Verizon Communications, Inc.(Filing Fee
    $ 350.00, Receipt Number 635205)Document filed by Erik Andersen, Rob
    Landley.(jeh) (Entered: 12/10/2007)

    12/06/2007 SUMMONS ISSUED as to Verizon Communications, Inc. (jeh)
    (Entered: 12/10/2007)

    12/06/2007 Case Designated ECF. (jeh) (Entered: 12/10/2007)

    12/06/2007 Magistrate Judge Debra C. Freeman is so designated. (jeh)
    (Entered: 12/10/2007)

    12/14/2007 2 ORDER RE SCHEDULING AND INITIAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE:
    Initial Conference set for 3/7/2008 at 2:30 PM in Courtroom 17C, 500
    Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Laura Taylor Swain.
    (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 12/13/07) (kco) (Entered:
    12/14/2007)

    12/19/2007 3 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE of Summons and Complaint. Verizon
    Communications, Inc. served on 12/7/2007, answer due 12/27/2007. Service
    was accepted by Terry Rolddan, Legal Department. Document filed by Erik
    Andersen; Rob Landley. (Ravicher, Daniel) (Entered: 12/19/2007)

    12/21/2007 4 ORDER TO EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDANT TO FILE ANSWER: Verizon
    Communications, Inc. answer is due 1/18/2007. (Signed by Judge Laura
    Taylor Swain on 12/21/2007) (jar) (Entered: 12/26/2007)

    01/02/2008 5 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE of Initial Conference Order served on
    Verizon Communications on 12/20/07. Service was accepted by Janet
    Donnelly, Assistant. Document filed by Erik Andersen, Rob Landley.
    (Ravicher, Daniel) (Entered: 01/02/2008)

    01/22/2008 6 ORDER TO EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDANT TO FILE ANSWER:
    Defendant has until 2/18/08, to answer or otherwise respond to the
    Complaint. Verizon Communications, Inc. answer due 2/18/2008. (Signed by
    Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 1/18/08) (tro) (Entered: 01/22/2008)

    02/19/2008 7 ORDER TO EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDAT TO FILE ANSWER:
    Defendant has until 2/27/08, to answer or otherwise respond to the
    Complaint. Verizon Communications, Inc. answer due 2/27/2008. (Signed by
    Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 2/19/08) (tro) (Entered: 02/19/2008)

    02/26/2008 8 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Laura Taylor Swain from
    Daniel B. Ravicher dated 2/25/08 re: Plaintiffs request an adjournment
    of the initial pre-trial conference currently scheduled for 3/7/08 to on
    or after 4/4/08. ENDORSEMENT: The conference is adjourned to April 9,
    2008 at 4:30 pm and the related submission deadline is modified
    accordingly. ( Initial Conference set for 4/9/2008 at 04:30 PM before
    Judge Laura Taylor Swain.) (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on
    2/25/08) (tro) (Entered: 02/26/2008)

    02/27/2008 9 ORDER that Defendants Verizon Communications, Inc. has
    until March 14, 2008, to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint
    filed on December 6, 2007, by Plaintiffs Erik Andersen and Rob Landley.
    IT IS SO ORDERED. Verizon Communications, Inc. answer due 3/14/2008.
    (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 2/27/2008) (jmi) (Entered:
    02/27/2008)

    03/17/2008 10 NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL: Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)
    of the F.R.C.P., plaintiffs Erik Andersen and Rob Landley hereby dismiss
    this action against defendant Verizon Communications Inc. with prejudice
    and without costs to any party. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on
    3/17/2008) (jpo) (Entered: 03/17/2008)

    regards,
    alexander.

    --
    http://linuxtaliban.com/bilder.htm

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

    Ha!

    rjack wrote:
    >
    > Rahul Dhesi wrote:
    > > Moshe Goldfarb writes:
    > >
    > >> The problem with the GNU GPL is that it is so confusing that the people
    > >> making decisions are leery of using Open Source code because they can't
    > >> determine positively what the impact, if any, could be to their
    > >> business.

    > >
    > >> Some of this is due to confusion and misunderstanding of the GPL, but
    > >> that's really the point.

    > >
    > > After they get caught violating the license they often plead
    > > misunderstanding and confusion. :-)

    >
    > After "they" (think Verizon) get "caught" they tell the SFLC (Software
    > Fictional Licensing Center) to kiss their royal ass and SFLC quickly
    > volunteers to dismiss the lawsuit without prejudice and then claims


    Both the official docket and
    http://www.terekhov.de/GPLvVerizon/V..._DISMISSAL.pdf itself say
    that the SFLC volunteered to dismiss the lawsuit WITH PREJUDICE.

    *WITH PREJUDICE*

    Fascinating!

    SFLC ran scared to death out of court conceding total defeat!!!

    --
    http://linuxtaliban.com/bilder.htm

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

    Alexander Terekhov wrote:
    > Ha!
    >
    > rjack wrote:
    >> Rahul Dhesi wrote:
    >>> Moshe Goldfarb writes:
    >>>
    >>>> The problem with the GNU GPL is that it is so confusing that the people
    >>>> making decisions are leery of using Open Source code because they can't
    >>>> determine positively what the impact, if any, could be to their
    >>>> business.
    >>>> Some of this is due to confusion and misunderstanding of the GPL, but
    >>>> that's really the point.
    >>> After they get caught violating the license they often plead
    >>> misunderstanding and confusion. :-)

    >> After "they" (think Verizon) get "caught" they tell the SFLC (Software
    >> Fictional Licensing Center) to kiss their royal ass and SFLC quickly
    >> volunteers to dismiss the lawsuit without prejudice and then claims

    >
    > Both the official docket and
    > http://www.terekhov.de/GPLvVerizon/V..._DISMISSAL.pdf itself say
    > that the SFLC volunteered to dismiss the lawsuit WITH PREJUDICE.
    >
    > *WITH PREJUDICE*
    >
    > Fascinating!
    >
    > SFLC ran scared to death out of court conceding total defeat!!!
    >
    > --
    > http://linuxtaliban.com/bilder.htm


    Not quite true.

    Verizon handed the SFLC their clients' (Andresen and Landley) heads on a
    platter but... the SFLC arose from the dead and claimed standing for a
    "resurrection" settlement over a party that was never joined in the
    lawsuit -- such is the mysterious authority of the GPL license!

    Hmmm... I wonder if the SFLC also had standing to force the tribal
    chiefs in Southern Warziristan to appoint voluntary "compliance
    officers" and pay undisclosed amounts.

    WHAT A GLORIOUS VICTORY FOR THE GPL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Sincerely,
    Rjack

    -- "Standing involves two distinct inquiries. First, an Article III
    federal court must ask whether a plaintiff has suffered sufficient
    injury to satisfy the "case or controversy" requirement of Article III
    .... Second, if a plaintiff has suffered sufficient injury to satisfy
    Article III, a federal court must ask whether a statute has conferred
    "standing" on that plaintiff."; Cetacean Community v. Bush, 386 F.3d
    1169 (United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 2004) --




  14. Software Fictional Licensing Center (SFLC) Files Another Round of GPLViolation Lawsuits

    http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20080610006158/en
    (SFLC's press release)

    Now,

    "All of the previous lawsuits have resulted in out-of-court settlements
    requiring the defendants to distribute source code in compliance with
    the GPL."

    that is quite a hallucination by SFLC's PR "Coordinator" given that
    previous lawsuit against Verizon resulted in dismissal WITH PREJUDICE
    against plaintiffs, meaning that defendant Verizon may now violate
    Busybox copyrights/breach the GPL covering said copyrights with impunity
    -- plaintiffs lost the case WITH PREJUDICE -- res judicata and all that.
    (The announced "settlement" with NON-DEFENDANT Actiontec is in no way
    affecting Verizon. To wit, Verizon is still breaching the GPL
    .)

    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: Software Fictional Licensing Center (SFLC) Files Another Round of GPL Violation Lawsuits

    On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 13:34:09 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

    > http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20080610006158/en
    > (SFLC's press release)
    >
    > Now,
    >
    > "All of the previous lawsuits have resulted in out-of-court settlements
    > requiring the defendants to distribute source code in compliance with
    > the GPL."
    >
    > that is quite a hallucination by SFLC's PR "Coordinator" given that
    > previous lawsuit against Verizon resulted in dismissal WITH PREJUDICE
    > against plaintiffs, meaning that defendant Verizon may now violate
    > Busybox copyrights/breach the GPL covering said copyrights with impunity
    > -- plaintiffs lost the case WITH PREJUDICE -- res judicata and all that.
    > (The announced "settlement" with NON-DEFENDANT Actiontec is in no way
    > affecting Verizon. To wit, Verizon is still breaching the GPL
    > .)
    >
    > regards,
    > alexander.


    You are going to scare Roy Schestowitz with this stuff.

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

  16. Re: Software Fictional Licensing Center (SFLC) Files Another Round of GPL Violation Lawsuits


    "Alexander Terekhov" wrote in message
    news:484FB831.EF0A05DE@web.de...
    >
    > "All of the previous lawsuits have resulted in out-of-court settlements
    > requiring the defendants to distribute source code in compliance with
    > the GPL."
    >

    In every one of the cases that I have managed to find that had any detail,
    the "compliance" involved was publishing the source of the original GPL
    product used. There doesn't seem to be any instance of the defendant
    publishing any new code. This seems kind of pointless in that these cases
    involve situations where the end user, who is given the access to the the
    source, is very unlikely to care. For Verizon, who gives a hoot about the
    code used inside one's cell phone or modem or switch or whatever? If it
    doesn't work, it will go back to the store for credit, no one is going to
    re-write the code inside to fix it. Except maybe some COLA guy, but they
    can find the source somewhere else anyway.


  17. Re: Software Fictional Licensing Center (SFLC) Files Another Roundof GPL Violation Lawsuits

    amicus_curious wrote:
    >
    > "Alexander Terekhov" wrote in message
    > news:484FB831.EF0A05DE@web.de...
    >>
    >> "All of the previous lawsuits have resulted in out-of-court settlements
    >> requiring the defendants to distribute source code in compliance with
    >> the GPL."
    >>

    > In every one of the cases that I have managed to find that had any
    > detail, the "compliance" involved was publishing the source of the
    > original GPL product used. There doesn't seem to be any instance of the
    > defendant publishing any new code.


    I have have never found any *verifiable* detail of *any* settlement of
    these lawsuits other than the court records available on PACER.

    I have read hearsay reports of settlements released from SFLC blog
    postings. . . these reports from SFLC lawyers who have spent the past
    seven years claiming a copyright license is not a contract.
    http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/enforcing-gpl.html

    These settlements concern BusyBox source code that has never been
    registered with the U.S. Copyright Office. The plaintiffs obviously have
    no standing to file these frivolous suits:

    "It provides that "no action for infringement of the copyright in any
    United States work shall be instituted until preregistration or
    registration of the copyright claim has been made in accordance with
    this title." . . . Whether this requirement is jurisdictional is not up
    for debate in this Circuit. On two recent occasions, we have squarely
    held that it is".; In re Literary Works in Electronic Databases
    Copyright Litigation 509 F.3d 116 (2nd Cir. 2007).

    Why believe *anything* from these SFLC crackpots? THE SFLC WILL NEVER,
    NEVER ALLOW A FEDERAL COURT TO REVIEW THE GPL ON ITS MERITS. They will
    even dismiss WITH PREJUDICE against their own clients rather than see a
    court actually review their moronic GPL license claims.

    Sincerely,
    Rjack

    -- "Whether express or implied, a license is a contract 'governed by
    ordinary principles of state contract law.'"; McCoy v. Mitsuboshi
    Cutlery, Inc., 67. F.3d 917, (United States Court of Appeals for the
    Federal Circuit 1995) --









  18. Re: Software Fictional Licensing Center (SFLC) Files Another Round of GPL Violation Lawsuits

    rjack writes:

    >These settlements concern BusyBox source code that has never been
    >registered with the U.S. Copyright Office. The plaintiffs obviously have
    >no standing to file these frivolous suits:


    I think you should file an amicus brief making this point.
    --
    Rahul
    http://rahul.rahul.net/

  19. Re: Software Fictional Licensing Center (SFLC) Files Another Round ofGPL Violation Lawsuits


    Rahul Dhesi wrote:
    >
    > rjack writes:
    >
    > >These settlements concern BusyBox source code that has never been
    > >registered with the U.S. Copyright Office. The plaintiffs obviously have
    > >no standing to file these frivolous suits:

    >
    > I think you should file an amicus brief making this point.


    What for, given that all SFLC's suits are ending prior to initial
    pre-trial conference (with SFLC asking for delay, delay, and event more
    delay*** in litigation) with court orders (four court orders to date)
    imposing nothing but dismissals?

    For example:

    http://www.terekhov.de/GPLvVerizon/DISMISSAL.pdf

    ***) "02/26/2008 8 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Laura Taylor
    Swain from Daniel B. Ravicher dated 2/25/08 re: Plaintiffs request an
    adjournment of the initial pre-trial conference currently scheduled for
    3/7/08 to on or after 4/4/08. ENDORSEMENT: The conference is adjourned
    to April 9, 2008 at 4:30 pm and the related submission deadline is
    modified accordingly. ( Initial Conference set for 4/9/2008 at 04:30 PM
    before Judge Laura Taylor Swain.) (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on
    2/25/08) (tro) (Entered: 02/26/2008)"

    (SFLC moved to dismiss WITH PREJUDICE against their own clients prior to
    (postponed on SFLC's request) pre-trial conference.)

    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: Software Fictional Licensing Center (SFLC) Files Another Roundof GPL Violation Lawsuits

    In article ,
    rjack wrote:

    >I have have never found any *verifiable* detail of *any* settlement of
    >these lawsuits other than the court records available on PACER.


    I have never found any *verifiable* evidence that you're a real person.

    But then I've never thought it worth bothering to look.

    -- Richard
    --
    In the selection of the two characters immediately succeeding the numeral 9,
    consideration shall be given to their replacement by the graphics 10 and 11 to
    facilitate the adoption of the code in the sterling monetary area. (X3.4-1963)

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 12 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast