The Busybox/softwarefreedom.org 'won' in court (default judgment) --where is the press release and all the buzz? - Linux

This is a discussion on The Busybox/softwarefreedom.org 'won' in court (default judgment) --where is the press release and all the buzz? - Linux ; Alexander Terekhov wrote: > http://www.terekhov.de/12.pdf > > Interesting insights on SFLC racket tactic... > > regards, > alexander. > > -- > http://gng.z505.com/index.htm > (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can > be infinitely looped ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 26 of 26

Thread: The Busybox/softwarefreedom.org 'won' in court (default judgment) --where is the press release and all the buzz?

  1. Re: The Busybox/softwarefreedom.org 'won' in court (default judgment)-- where is the press release and all the buzz?

    Alexander Terekhov wrote:
    > http://www.terekhov.de/12.pdf
    >
    > Interesting insights on SFLC racket tactic...
    >
    > 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.)


    A very similar case provides some insight into default judgments:

    "The district court's concern over an apparent attempt to usurp
    control of the court's docket is fully understandable. When justice
    is denied by delay to so many, the administration of justice demands
    the praiseworthy close control and supervision of its crowded docket
    intended here by the district court. It is clear that courts cannot
    surrender or shift that responsibility. Mere agreements of counsel
    or parties cannot alone be sufficient to waive the timeliness
    requirements of the Federal Rules. See Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S.
    626, 630-31, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 1388-89, 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962).5 But, as
    above indicated, courts also " 'universally favor trial on the
    merits.' " Erick Rios Bridoux v. Eastern Air Lines, supra at 210
    (quoting Manos v. Fickenscher, 62 A.2d 791, 793 (D.C.Mun.App.1948)).
    The assurances upon which defendants relied were part of and grew
    out of settlement negotiations, a dispute-resolving mechanism the
    courts seek to encourage. Settlement having failed, the interests of
    justice in this case would be ill-served by resort to a procedural
    device that would unfairly or unnecessarily foreclose resolution of
    the dispute on its merits. As above indicated, the most certain
    safeguard lies in application of the three listed criteria to
    motions to set aside defaults.

    Accordingly, we reverse the orders entering judgment for Keegel and
    denying defendants' motion to set aside the default, and remand with
    directions to grant defendants' motion to set aside the default."
    Keegel v. Key West & Caribbean Trading Co., 627 F.2d 372

    http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/...2.79-1616.html

    Sincerely,
    Rjack

  2. Re: The Busybox/softwarefreedom.org 'won' in court (default judgment) -- where is the press release and all the buzz?

    Rjack writes:

    >A very similar case provides some insight into default judgments:


    [ quote ]

    >http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/...2.79-1616.html


    I commend you for posting a public link.

    Your quote assumes that two parties are both proceeding with settlement
    talks in good faith and there is a mutual agreement to extend deadlines.
    It won't apply in any other situation.
    --
    Rahul
    http://rahul.rahul.net/

  3. Re: The Busybox/softwarefreedom.org 'won' in court (default judgment)-- where is the press release and all the buzz?

    Rjack wrote:
    > Alexander Terekhov wrote:
    >> http://www.terekhov.de/12.pdf
    >>
    >> Interesting insights on SFLC racket tactic...
    >>
    >> 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.)

    >
    > A very similar case provides some insight into default judgments:


    Another case to provide insight into default judgment policy:

    [begin quote]
    In sum, "an extensive line of decisions" has held that Federal Rule
    of Civil Procedure 55(c) must be "liberally construed in order to
    provide relief from the onerous consequences of defaults and default
    judgments." Tolson v. Hodge, 411 F.2d 123, 130 (4th Cir.1969). And,
    although the decision whether to set aside a default judgment is one
    committed to the sound discretion of the district court, see
    Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(c), Moradi, 673 F.2d at 727, "an abuse of discretion
    in refusing to set aside a default judgment 'need not be glaring to
    justify reversal.' " Jackson v. Beech, 636 F.2d 831, 835
    (D.C.Cir.1980) (quoting Keegel v. Key West & Caribbean Trading Co.,
    627 F.2d 372, 374 (D.C.Cir.1980)); accord Davis v. Musler, 713 F.2d
    907, 913 (2d Cir.1983). We find an abuse of discretion here, and
    hold that there has indeed been "good cause shown" to set aside the
    entry of default. F.R.C.P. 55(c).

    Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of the district court and remand
    for proceedings consistent with this opinion. That action makes it
    unnecessary to examine the other questions raised in the appeal and
    cross-appeal."
    [end quote]
    Lolatchy v. Arthur Murray Inc Lolatchy, 816 F2d 951, (4th Cir.)(1987)

    Sincerely,
    Rack

  4. Re: The Busybox/softwarefreedom.org 'won' in court (default judgment)-- where is the press release and all the buzz?

    Rahul Dhesi wrote:
    > Rjack writes:
    >
    >> A very similar case provides some insight into default judgments:

    >
    > [ quote ]
    >
    >> http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/...2.79-1616.html

    >
    > I commend you for posting a public link.
    >

    A sufficient citation consists of three basic parts:
    1) name of the case, statute, or article
    2) where the item can be found, written as:
    volume number, name of publication, page number
    3) a date

    A complete case citation looks like this:
    Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).

    Most sources for legal citations *do not* have
    URL links available. This may be difficult for some
    of the current generation to grasp.

    There are real brick and mortar buildings called
    "law libraries" which contain many cited resources.
    I realize that actions beyond the clicking of a mouse
    are strenuous but many times they are necessary.

    Sincerely,
    Rjack

  5. Re: The Busybox/softwarefreedom.org 'won' in court (default judgment) -- where is the press release and all the buzz?

    Rjack writes:

    >Another case to provide insight into default judgment policy:


    [ case law fragment ]

    As always, there is a big problem with Rjack's quote (going beyond
    Rjack's laziness in providing no public link). Court of appeals rulings
    apply to specific facts. Rjack's case law fragments are almost provided
    by him without trying to match them to the facts at hand. He posts his
    out-of-context quotes essentially in a vacuum. This is how trolls work.
    And when his trolling fizzles out, he will repost it under a different
    subjet heading, hoping his duplication won't be noticed.
    --
    Rahul
    http://rahul.rahul.net/

  6. Re: The Busybox/softwarefreedom.org 'won' in court (default judgment) --where is the press release and all the buzz?


    Rahul Dhesi wrote:
    [...]
    > As always, there is a big problem with Rjack's quote (going beyond
    > Rjack's laziness in providing no public link).


    CAFC ( quoting http://www.rosenlaw.com/BadFactsMakeGoodLaw.pdf ):

    ["On August 13, 2008, in Jacobsen v. Katzer, Case Number 2008-1001"]

    "The CAFC relied on a long-ago California Supreme Court decision to the
    effect that a condition can be found by "attributing the usual and
    ordinary signification to the language of the parties." [Pg. 1381,
    citing Diepenbrock v. Luiz, 159 Cal. 716 (1911)] Thus the CAFC
    determined that the Artistic License, when it also uses the phrase
    "provided that," "denotes a condition" under California contract law.
    [Pg. 1381] This does, however, raise an interesting question: Of the
    current approved open source and Creative Commons licenses, which of
    them clearly distinguish their conditions from their covenants, and
    under which state's contract law do we analyze that question?"

    SCO ( quoting http://groklaw.net/pdf/Novell-301.pdf ):

    ["DATED this 18th day of May, 2007."]

    "As discussed by The Supreme Court of California, the term “provided”
    may or may not indicate a condition, noting that “‘there is no magic in
    the term [“provided”], and the clause in a contract is to be construed
    from the words employed and from the purpose of the parties, gathered
    from the whole instrument.’” Diepenbrock v. Luiz, 115 P. 743, 744 (Cal.
    1911) (quoting Boston Safe Dep. and Trust Co. v. Thomas, 53 P. 472 (Kan.
    1898) (finding that, based on a reading of an entire provision, a clause
    containing “provided, that” was not a condition))."

    Where is the truth (not going into the actual nature of conditions v.
    covenants), Rahul?

    Do you have a link to Diepenbrock v. Luiz, Rahul?

    Californians, please help.

    TIA.

    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.)

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2