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

The judge ruled in favor of Plaintiffs... again: where's the press
release and all the buzz?

Here's the ruling:

[url]http://www.terekhov.de/DEFAULT-JUDGMENT.pdf[/url]

Here's the entire docket:

Date Filed # Docket Text

06/09/2008 1 COMPLAINT against Bell Microproducts, Inc., D.B.A. Hammer
Storage. (Filing Fee $ 350.00, Receipt Number 653550)Document filed by
Erik Andersen, Rob Landley.(mbe) (mbe). (Entered: 06/12/2008)

06/09/2008 SUMMONS ISSUED as to Bell Microproducts, Inc., D.B.A. Hammer
Storage. (mbe) (Entered: 06/12/2008)

06/09/2008 Magistrate Judge Douglas F. Eaton is so designated. (mbe)
(Entered: 06/12/2008)

06/09/2008 Case Designated ECF. (mbe) (Entered: 06/12/2008)

06/09/2008 ***NOTE TO ATTORNEY TO E-MAIL PDF. Note to Attorney for
noncompliance with Section (3) of the S.D.N.Y. 3rd Amended Instructions
For Filing An Electronic Case or Appeal and Section 1(d) of the S.D.N.Y.
Procedures For Electronic Case Filing. E-MAIL the PDF for Document 1
Complaint to: [email]case_openings@nysd.uscourts.gov[/email]. (mbe) (Entered:
06/12/2008)

06/26/2008 2 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE. Bell Microproducts, Inc. served on
6/18/2008, answer due 7/8/2008; D.B.A. Hammer Storage served on
6/18/2008, answer due 7/8/2008. Service was accepted by Darcy Burnham,
Managing Agent. Document filed by Erik Andersen; Rob Landley.
(Williamson, Aaron) (Entered: 06/26/2008)

07/01/2008 3 ORDER; that Defendant Bell Microproducts, Inc. has until
7/21/2008 to answer the Complaint filed on 6/9/2008 by Plaintiffs Erik
Anderson and Rob Landley. SO ORDERED. Bell Microproducts, Inc. answer
due 7/21/2008. (Signed by Judge Harold Baer on 7/1/2008) (tve) (Entered:
07/01/2008)

07/21/2008 4 ORDER TO EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDANT TO FILE ANSWER It is
hereby ordered that defendant Bell Microproducts, Inc. has until August
4, 2008 to answer the complaint filed on June 9, 2008 by plaintiffs Erik
Anderson and Rob Landley. Bell Microproducts, Inc. answer due 8/4/2008.
(Signed by Judge Harold Baer on 7/21/08) (mme) (Entered: 07/21/2008)

07/31/2008 5 LETTER addressed to Aaron Kyle Williamson, Esq. from
Chambers of Judge Harold Baer, Jr. dated 7/14/08 re: from Chambers of
Judge Harold Baer, Jr. dated 7/14/08 re: that a Pre-Trial Conference on
this case at 3:00 P.M. on Thursday, 8/21/08 in Room 2230. Additional
information is as set forth in this order. (pl) Modified on 7/31/2008
(pl). (Entered: 07/31/2008)

08/01/2008 Set/Reset Scheduling Order Deadlines: Pretrial Conference set
for 8/21/2008 at 03:00 PM before Judge Harold Baer. (pl) (Entered:
08/01/2008)

09/11/2008 6 DEFAULT JUDGMENT in favor of Erik Andersen and Rob Landley
against Bell Microproducts, Inc., D.B.A. Hammer Storage. Ordered that
this matter be referred to a Magistrate Judge for an inquest. (Signed by
Judge Harold Baer on 9/10/08) (ml) (Entered: 09/11/2008)

regards,
alexander.

--
[url]http://gng.z505.com/index.htm[/url]
(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.)

WOW. Developments!

Alexander Terekhov wrote:[color=blue]
>
> The judge ruled in favor of Plaintiffs... again: where's the press
> release and all the buzz?
>
> Here's the ruling:
>
> [url]http://www.terekhov.de/DEFAULT-JUDGMENT.pdf[/url]
>
> Here's the entire docket:
>
> Date Filed # Docket Text
>
> 06/09/2008 1 COMPLAINT against Bell Microproducts, Inc., D.B.A. Hammer
> Storage. (Filing Fee $ 350.00, Receipt Number 653550)Document filed by
> Erik Andersen, Rob Landley.(mbe) (mbe). (Entered: 06/12/2008)
>
> 06/09/2008 SUMMONS ISSUED as to Bell Microproducts, Inc., D.B.A. Hammer
> Storage. (mbe) (Entered: 06/12/2008)
>
> 06/09/2008 Magistrate Judge Douglas F. Eaton is so designated. (mbe)
> (Entered: 06/12/2008)
>
> 06/09/2008 Case Designated ECF. (mbe) (Entered: 06/12/2008)
>
> 06/09/2008 ***NOTE TO ATTORNEY TO E-MAIL PDF. Note to Attorney for
> noncompliance with Section (3) of the S.D.N.Y. 3rd Amended Instructions
> For Filing An Electronic Case or Appeal and Section 1(d) of the S.D.N.Y.
> Procedures For Electronic Case Filing. E-MAIL the PDF for Document 1
> Complaint to: [email]case_openings@nysd.uscourts.gov[/email]. (mbe) (Entered:
> 06/12/2008)
>
> 06/26/2008 2 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE. Bell Microproducts, Inc. served on
> 6/18/2008, answer due 7/8/2008; D.B.A. Hammer Storage served on
> 6/18/2008, answer due 7/8/2008. Service was accepted by Darcy Burnham,
> Managing Agent. Document filed by Erik Andersen; Rob Landley.
> (Williamson, Aaron) (Entered: 06/26/2008)
>
> 07/01/2008 3 ORDER; that Defendant Bell Microproducts, Inc. has until
> 7/21/2008 to answer the Complaint filed on 6/9/2008 by Plaintiffs Erik
> Anderson and Rob Landley. SO ORDERED. Bell Microproducts, Inc. answer
> due 7/21/2008. (Signed by Judge Harold Baer on 7/1/2008) (tve) (Entered:
> 07/01/2008)
>
> 07/21/2008 4 ORDER TO EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDANT TO FILE ANSWER It is
> hereby ordered that defendant Bell Microproducts, Inc. has until August
> 4, 2008 to answer the complaint filed on June 9, 2008 by plaintiffs Erik
> Anderson and Rob Landley. Bell Microproducts, Inc. answer due 8/4/2008.
> (Signed by Judge Harold Baer on 7/21/08) (mme) (Entered: 07/21/2008)
>
> 07/31/2008 5 LETTER addressed to Aaron Kyle Williamson, Esq. from
> Chambers of Judge Harold Baer, Jr. dated 7/14/08 re: from Chambers of
> Judge Harold Baer, Jr. dated 7/14/08 re: that a Pre-Trial Conference on
> this case at 3:00 P.M. on Thursday, 8/21/08 in Room 2230. Additional
> information is as set forth in this order. (pl) Modified on 7/31/2008
> (pl). (Entered: 07/31/2008)
>
> 08/01/2008 Set/Reset Scheduling Order Deadlines: Pretrial Conference set
> for 8/21/2008 at 03:00 PM before Judge Harold Baer. (pl) (Entered:
> 08/01/2008)
>
> 09/11/2008 6 DEFAULT JUDGMENT in favor of Erik Andersen and Rob Landley
> against Bell Microproducts, Inc., D.B.A. Hammer Storage. Ordered that
> this matter be referred to a Magistrate Judge for an inquest. (Signed by
> Judge Harold Baer on 9/10/08) (ml) (Entered: 09/11/2008)[/color]

09/24/2008 7 AFFIDAVIT of Aaron Williamson in Support re: 6 Default
Judgment Inquest. Document filed by Erik Andersen, Rob Landley.
(Williamson, Aaron) (Entered: 09/24/2008)
09/24/2008 8 FIRST MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 6 Default Judgment
Inquest. Document filed by Erik Andersen, Rob Landley. (Williamson,
Aaron) (Entered: 09/24/2008)
09/24/2008 9 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Ognjan Varbanov Shentov on behalf
of Bell Microproducts, Inc. (Shentov, Ognjan) (Entered: 09/24/2008)
09/24/2008 10 MOTION to Set Aside Default Judgment. Document filed by
Bell Microproducts, Inc..(Marvin, Lynn) (Entered: 09/24/2008)
09/24/2008 11 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 10 MOTION to Set Aside
Default Judgment.. Document filed by Bell Microproducts, Inc..
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Marvin, Lynn) (Entered: 09/24/2008)
09/24/2008 12 AFFIDAVIT of Andrew S. Hughes in Support re: 10 MOTION to
Set Aside Default Judgment.. Document filed by Bell Microproducts, Inc..
(Marvin, Lynn) (Entered: 09/24/2008)

regards,
alexander.

--
[url]http://gng.z505.com/index.htm[/url]
(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.)

Here's Bell Microproducts' ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------------------x
ERIK ANDERSEN AND ROB LANDLEY,
Plaintiffs,
-against-
BELL MICROPRODUCTS, INC. D.B.A.
HAMMER STORAGE,
Defendant.

Civil Action No. 08 CV 5270 (HB)
ECF CASE
------------------------------------------------------------x

ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT

Defendant Bell Microproducts, Inc. (“Bell Microproducts”), through its
undersigned counsel, as and for its Answer to the Complaint filed by
Erik Anderson and Rob Landley, states as follows:

THE PARTIES

1. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 1 of the Complaint.

2. In response to paragraph 2 of the Complaint, Bell Microproducts
admits that it is a California corporation with its principal place of
business at 1941 Ringwood Avenue, San Jose, CA 95131. Bell Microproducts
admits that it is a distributor of computer hardware and software. Bell
Microproducts further admits that it conducts business in New York.
Except as specifically admitted, Bell Microproducts denies the
allegations in paragraph 2 of the Complaint.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3. In response to paragraph 3 of the Complaint, Bell Microproducts
states this is a legal conclusion not subject to an admission or denial.

4. In response to paragraph 4 of the Complaint, Bell Microproducts
admits that it owns and operates a website at shop.bellmicro.com where
it sells hardware and software products to, including, but not limited
to, residents of New York state. Except as expressly admitted, Bell
Microproducts denies the allegations in paragraph 4 of the Complaint and
states that personal jurisdiction is a legal conclusion not subject to
an admission or denial.

5. In response to paragraph 5 of the Complaint, Bell Microproducts
admits that it conducts business in New York state. Except as expressly
admitted, Bell Microproducts denies knowledge or information sufficient
to form a belief as to the truth of the matters asserted therein and
states that whether venue is proper is a legal conclusion not subject to
an admission or denial.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

6. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 6 of the Complaint.

7. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 7 of the Complaint.

8. In response to paragraph 8 of the Complaint, Bell Microproducts
states that the License speaks for itself and on that basis, denies any
allegations of paragraph 8 inconsistent therewith.

9. In response to paragraph 9 of the Complaint, Bell Microproducts
states that the License speaks for itself and on that basis, denies any
allegations of paragraph 9 inconsistent therewith.

10. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 10 of the Complaint.

11. Bell Microproducts admits that it sells storage devices containing
firmware, which it purchases from a third party. Defendant further
admits that it makes the firmware available for download on its website.
Except as expressly admitted, Bell Microproducts denies all the
allegations contained in paragraph 11 of the Complaint.

12. Bell Microproducts admits that it purchases storage devices that
contain firmware from a third party. Bell Microproducts is unaware if
the firmware it purchases from the third party contains BusyBox. Bell
Microproducts states that the License speaks for itself and on that
basis, denies any allegations of paragraph 12 inconsistent therewith.
Except as expressly admitted, Bell Microproducts denies all the
allegations contained in paragraph 12 of the Complaint.

13. In response to paragraph 13 of the Complaint, Bell Microproducts
denies, generally and specifically, each and every allegation contained
therein.

14. In response to paragraph 14 of the Complaint, Bell Microproducts
states that the License speaks for itself and on that basis, denies any
allegations of paragraph 14 inconsistent therewith.

15. Upon information and belief, Bell Microproducts denies the
allegations of Paragraph 15 of the Complaint.

16. In response to paragraph 16 of the Complaint, Bell Microproducts
admits that Plaintiffs sent a letter dated April 21, 2008, addressed to
“Hammer Storage by Bell Microproducts” alleging Hammer Storage failed to
comply with the License. Except as expressly admitted, Bell
Microproducts denies, generally and specifically, the allegations
contained in paragraph 16 of the Complaint.

COUNT 1
COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT

17. In response to paragraph 17, Bell Microproducts incorporates its
answers from paragraphs 1 through 16 as though fully stated herein.

18. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 18 of the Complaint.

19. In response to paragraph 19 of the Complaint, Bell Microproducts
denies, generally and specifically, each and every allegation contained
therein.

20. In response to paragraph 20 of the Complaint, Bell Microproducts
denies, generally and specifically, each and every allegation contained
therein.

21. In response to paragraph 21 of the Complaint, Bell Microproducts
denies, generally and specifically, each and every allegation contained
therein.

22. In response to paragraph 22 of the Complaint, Bell Microproducts
denies, generally and specifically, each and every allegation contained
therein.

In response to Plaintiffs’ “Prayer for Relief,” Bell Microproducts
denies that Plaintiffs are entitled to any relief, injunctive, monetary,
or otherwise, against Bell Microproducts.

DEFENSES

FIRST DEFENSE
(FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM)

The Complaint fails to set forth facts sufficient to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted against Bell Microproducts and fails to
state facts sufficient to entitle Plaintiffs to the relief sought, or to
any other relief from Bell Microproducts.

SECOND DEFENSE
(ESTOPPEL)

Plaintiffs are estopped from pursuing their claims against Bell
Microproducts.

THIRD DEFENSE
(UNCLEAN HANDS)

The Complaint, and each claim for relief therein that seeks equitable
relief, is barred by the doctrine of unclean hands.

FOURTH DEFENSE
(WAIVER)

Plaintiffs have waived their claims against Bell Microproducts.

FIFTH DEFENSE
(DE MINIMIS USE)

Plaintiffs claims are barred by the doctrine of de minimis use.

SIXTH DEFENSE
(FIRST SALE DOCTRINE)

Plaintiffs claims are barred by the first sale doctrine.

SEVENTH DEFENSE
(INDEMNIFICATION)

Any purported damages allegedly suffered by Plaintiffs are the results
of the acts or omissions of third persons over whom Bell Microproducts
had neither control nor responsibility.

EIGHTH DEFENSE
(RIGHT TO ASSERT ADDITIONAL DEFENSES)

Bell Microproducts reserves the right to assert additional affirmative
defenses as such time and to such extent as warranted by discovery and
the factual developments in this case.

WHEREFORE, Defendant Bell Microproducts prays as follows:

(1) That Plaintiffs take nothing by virtue of the Complaint herein and
that this action be dismissed in its entirety;

(2) For costs and attorneys’ fees incurred; and

(3) For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and
proper.

Dated: New York, New York
September 24, 2008

Respectfully submitted,
JONES DAY
/s/ Lynn M. Marvin
Ognian Shentov, Esq. (OS-4868)
Lynn M. Marvin, Esq. (LM-2281)

JONES DAY
222 E. 41st Street
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: 212-326-3939
Facsimile: 212-755-7306
Counsel for Defendant
BELL MICROPRODUCTS, INC.

regards,
alexander.

--
[url]http://gng.z505.com/index.htm[/url]
(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.)

Alexander Terekhov wrote:[color=blue]
> 09/24/2008 11 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 10 MOTION to Set Aside
> Default Judgment.. Document filed by Bell Microproducts, Inc..[/color]

Hee, hee. Someone just woke up.

Alexander Terekhov wrote:
[color=blue]
> WHEREFORE, Defendant Bell Microproducts prays as follows:
>
> (1) That Plaintiffs take nothing by virtue of the Complaint
> herein and that this action be dismissed in its entirety;
>
> (2) For costs and attorneys’ fees incurred; and
>
> (3) For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just
> and proper.[/color]

Perhaps we shall share the privilege of witnessing the
world-renowned litigation team of Daniel Ravicher and
Eben Moglen in dynamic splendor.

Sincerely,
Rjack :)

[url]http://www.terekhov.de/12.pdf[/url]

Interesting insights on SFLC racket tactic...

regards,
alexander.

--
[url]http://gng.z505.com/index.htm[/url]
(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.)

Alexander Terekhov wrote:[color=blue]
> Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
> truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 7 of the Complaint.[/color]
....[color=blue]
> EIGHTH DEFENSE (RIGHT TO ASSERT ADDITIONAL DEFENSES)[/color]
....

From my extensive legal knowledge gained from reading Groklaw (:-)
this is a typical response to a complaint. The defendant denies
everything but the most straightforward facts, and asserts every
possible defense. It is then up to the plaintiff to prove his case,
demonstrating that the allegations are true and that the claimed
defenses do not apply.
[color=blue]
> Pretrial Conference set for 8/21/2008 at 03:00 PM before Judge
> Harold Baer.[/color]

This, by the way, is why those complaints from some quarters about
why the SFLC don't go to trial instead of settling are silly.
At the pre-trial conferences the judge talks to all sides, and if
one of them says that they're prepared to settle, the other side
can't say that they want a trial anyway.

Hyman Rosen wrote:[color=blue]
>
> Alexander Terekhov wrote:[color=green]
> > 09/24/2008 11 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 10 MOTION to Set Aside
> > Default Judgment.. Document filed by Bell Microproducts, Inc..[/color]
>
> Hee, hee. Someone just woke up.[/color]

What's your take on this

[url]http://www.terekhov.de/12.pdf[/url]

Hyman?

regards,
alexander.

--
[url]http://gng.z505.com/index.htm[/url]
(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.)

Alexander Terekhov wrote:[color=blue]
> [url]http://www.terekhov.de/12.pdf[/url]
> Interesting insights on SFLC racket tactic...[/color]

The SFLC filed for four weeks worth of extensions while
they were negotiating. That they didn't make it six only
constitutes a racket in your imagination. They're still
negotiating, and from this same document, it appears that
we will have the same result as always - the defendants
will make the source code available and the case will be
dismissed.

The real lesson to be learned form this document is that when
you are sued, it's your job to hire a lawyer, and not to rely
on the good graces of the other party. That response to the
complaint you posted should have been filed immediately, good
faith negotiations or not.

Alexander Terekhov wrote:[color=blue]
> [url]http://www.terekhov.de/12.pdf[/url]
>
> Interesting insights on SFLC racket tactic...
>
> regards,
> alexander.
>
> --
> [url]http://gng.z505.com/index.htm[/url]
> (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.)[/color]

Yeah.

1) Engage defendant's in settlement talks.
2) Behind defendant's back final a motion for default judgement.

I don't know how you could go any lower than this.

Sincerely,
Rjack :)

Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...][color=blue]
> negotiating, and from this same document, it appears that
> we will have the same result as always - the defendants
> will make the source code available and the case will be[/color]

You could note that the products have had GPL source code available
since 11 June 2008:

[url]http://www.hammer-storage.com/support/software_updates.asp[/url]
(Bottom of the page)

regards,
alexander.

--
[url]http://gng.z505.com/index.htm[/url]
(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.)

Alexander Terekhov wrote:[color=blue]
> You could note that the products have had GPL source code available
> since 11 June 2008:
> [url]http://www.hammer-storage.com/support/software_updates.asp[/url]
> (Bottom of the page)[/color]

You could note that the binaries were made available since
20 March 2007 (Top of the page). So this is yet another case
of a company eventually getting around to posting source code
when they're badgered into it.

Hyman Rosen wrote:[color=blue]
>
> Alexander Terekhov wrote:[color=green]
> > You could note that the products have had GPL source code available
> > since 11 June 2008:
> > [url]http://www.hammer-storage.com/support/software_updates.asp[/url]
> > (Bottom of the page)[/color]
>
> You could note that the binaries were made available since
> 20 March 2007 (Top of the page). So this is yet another case
> of a company eventually getting around to posting source code
> when they're badgered into it.[/color]

C'mon Hyman, there is still Verizon.

regards,
alexander.

--
[url]http://gng.z505.com/index.htm[/url]
(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.)

Hyman Rosen wrote:[color=blue]
> Alexander Terekhov wrote:[color=green]
>> Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
>> truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 7 of the Complaint.[/color]
> ...[color=green]
>> EIGHTH DEFENSE (RIGHT TO ASSERT ADDITIONAL DEFENSES)[/color]
> ...
>
> From my extensive legal knowledge gained from reading Groklaw (:-)
> this is a typical response to a complaint.[/color]

Yes. . . Groklaw!!!

That's where Hymen learned that a license is not a contract.

******************************
The GPL is a License, Not a Contract, Which is Why the Sky Isn't
Falling
Sunday, December 14 2003 @ 09:06 PM EST
******************************
[url]http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20031214210634851[/url]

Obviously The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
didn't learn of Her Majesty's decree:

"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)

Should we all learn our copyright law at Groklaw?

Sincerely,
Rjack :)

The defendant denies[color=blue]
> everything but the most straightforward facts, and asserts every
> possible defense. It is then up to the plaintiff to prove his case,
> demonstrating that the allegations are true and that the claimed
> defenses do not apply.
>[color=green]
> > Pretrial Conference set for 8/21/2008 at 03:00 PM before Judge
> > Harold Baer.[/color]
>[/color]
Q: How many pretrial conferences have been held in the BusyBox cases?

A: Zero.
[color=blue]
> This, by the way, is why those complaints from some quarters about
> why the SFLC don't go to trial instead of settling are silly.
> At the pre-trial conferences the judge talks to all sides, and if
> one of them says that they're prepared to settle, the other side
> can't say that they want a trial anyway.[/color]

Sincerely,
Rjack :)

Alexander Terekhov wrote:[color=blue]
> C'mon Hyman, there is still Verizon.[/color]

They're just providing a gateway to Actiontec.

Rjack wrote:[color=blue]
> Yes. . . Groklaw!!![/color]

If I have to choose between Pamela Jones or Frick and Frack
here on the newsgroup, my choice is clear.

Hyman Rosen wrote:[color=blue]
> Rjack wrote:[color=green]
>> Yes. . . Groklaw!!![/color]
>
> If I have to choose between Pamela Jones or Frick and Frack
> here on the newsgroup, my choice is clear.[/color]

If you have to choose between Pamela Jones or the federal
courts courts in the real world, your choice is also
obvious.

Sincerely,
Rjack :)

Rjack wrote:[color=blue]
> If you have to choose between Pamela Jones or the federal
> courts courts in the real world, your choice is also obvious.[/color]

Fortunately, when the JMRI appeals court was faced with an
open source license, it upheld it. So now I don't have to
choose, because they agree with each other.

Hyman Rosen wrote:[color=blue]
> Rjack wrote:[color=green]
>> If you have to choose between Pamela Jones or the federal
>> courts courts in the real world, your choice is also obvious.[/color]
>
> Fortunately, when the JMRI appeals court was faced with an
> open source license, it upheld it. So now I don't have to
> choose, because they agree with each other.[/color]

1) A blog without copyright authority -- Groklaw.

2) A court without copyright authority -- to wit:

"[In} Bandag, Inc. v. Al Bolser's Tire Stores, Inc., 750 F.2d 903,
at 909 (Fed.Cir.1984), this court said:

"Accordingly, we deem it appropriate here to decide non-patent
matters in the light of the problems faced by the district court
from which each count originated, including the law there
applicable. In this conflicts in non-patent areas. A district court
judge should not be expected to look over his shoulder to the law in
this circuit, save asto those claims over which our subject matter
jurisdiction is exclusive. [Footnote omitted.]
....
The freedom of the district courts to follow the guidance of their
particular circuits in all but the substantive law fields assigned
exclusively to this court is recognized in the foregoing opinions
and in this case."; ATARI, INC., v. JS & A GROUP, INC., 747 F.2d
1422, 223 USPQ 1074 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (en banc)."

They certainly share some interesting traits.

Sincerely,
Rjack :)

Rjack wrote:[color=blue]
> 1) A blog without copyright authority -- Groklaw.
> 2) A court without copyright authority -- to wit:[/color]

Still better than a frequent poster on Usenet.