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 ; The judge ruled in favor of Plaintiffs... again: where's the press release and all the buzz? Here's the ruling: http://www.terekhov.de/DEFAULT-JUDGMENT.pdf Here's the entire docket: Date Filed # Docket Text 06/09/2008 1 COMPLAINT against Bell Microproducts, Inc., D.B.A. Hammer Storage. (Filing ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 26

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

  1. 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:

    http://www.terekhov.de/DEFAULT-JUDGMENT.pdf

    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: case_openings@nysd.uscourts.gov. (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.

    --
    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.)

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

    WOW. Developments!

    Alexander Terekhov wrote:
    >
    > The judge ruled in favor of Plaintiffs... again: where's the press
    > release and all the buzz?
    >
    > Here's the ruling:
    >
    > http://www.terekhov.de/DEFAULT-JUDGMENT.pdf
    >
    > 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: case_openings@nysd.uscourts.gov. (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)


    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.

    --
    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.)

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

    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.

    --
    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.)

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

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


    Hee, hee. Someone just woke up.

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

    Alexander Terekhov wrote:

    > 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.


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

    Sincerely,
    Rjack

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

    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.)

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

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

    ....
    > EIGHTH DEFENSE (RIGHT TO ASSERT ADDITIONAL DEFENSES)

    ....

    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.

    > Pretrial Conference set for 8/21/2008 at 03:00 PM before Judge
    > Harold Baer.


    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.

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


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

    >
    > Hee, hee. Someone just woke up.


    What's your take on this

    http://www.terekhov.de/12.pdf

    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.)

  9. 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...


    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.

  10. 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.)


    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

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


    Hyman Rosen wrote:
    [...]
    > 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


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

    http://www.hammer-storage.com/suppor...re_updates.asp
    (Bottom of the page)

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

    Alexander Terekhov wrote:
    > You could note that the products have had GPL source code available
    > since 11 June 2008:
    > http://www.hammer-storage.com/suppor...re_updates.asp
    > (Bottom of the page)


    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.

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


    Hyman Rosen wrote:
    >
    > Alexander Terekhov wrote:
    > > You could note that the products have had GPL source code available
    > > since 11 June 2008:
    > > http://www.hammer-storage.com/suppor...re_updates.asp
    > > (Bottom of the page)

    >
    > 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.


    C'mon Hyman, there is still Verizon.

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

    Hyman Rosen wrote:
    > Alexander Terekhov wrote:
    >> Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
    >> truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 7 of the Complaint.

    > ...
    >> EIGHTH DEFENSE (RIGHT TO ASSERT ADDITIONAL DEFENSES)

    > ...
    >
    > From my extensive legal knowledge gained from reading Groklaw (:-)
    > this is a typical response to a complaint.


    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
    ******************************
    http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...31214210634851

    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
    > 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.
    >
    > > Pretrial Conference set for 8/21/2008 at 03:00 PM before Judge
    > > Harold Baer.

    >

    Q: How many pretrial conferences have been held in the BusyBox cases?

    A: Zero.

    > 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.


    Sincerely,
    Rjack

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

    Alexander Terekhov wrote:
    > C'mon Hyman, there is still Verizon.


    They're just providing a gateway to Actiontec.

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

    Rjack wrote:
    > Yes. . . Groklaw!!!


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

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

    Hyman Rosen wrote:
    > Rjack wrote:
    >> Yes. . . Groklaw!!!

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


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

    Sincerely,
    Rjack


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

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


    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.

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

    Hyman Rosen wrote:
    > Rjack wrote:
    >> If you have to choose between Pamela Jones or the federal
    >> courts courts in the real world, your choice is also obvious.

    >
    > 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.


    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

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

    Rjack wrote:
    > 1) A blog without copyright authority -- Groklaw.
    > 2) A court without copyright authority -- to wit:


    Still better than a frequent poster on Usenet.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast