[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Wallace case FAQ for dummies v1.5

From: Alexander Terekhov
Subject: Re: Wallace case FAQ for dummies v1.5
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2006 11:16:07 +0200

Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> Ter, 2006-07-04 Ã s 19:17 +0200, Alexander Terekhov escreveu:
> > Q: Bzzzzt, but according to RMS, "intellectual property... is a mirage,
> > which appears to have a coherent existence only because the term
> > suggests it does." So bzzzzt, what the fuck ... !?
> >
> > A: Well, well, well. But according to one FTC commissioner (and an
> > antitrust attorney),
> Alex, please let me understand your reasoning:
> Because a text is published by some law authority like FTC "is", or
> Attoneries are, or even Judges... does that have to be taken as Official
> in the Point of View of Law?



         1. We will work together toward resolution of our cases by 
         being reasonable.
         6. We will scrupulously refrain from making misleading 
         statements of law or fact, whether by omission, inference 
         or implication."

Moglens "license-not-a-contract" and not only violates
the standards, it warrants disbarment. I'm for free speech and all that,
but please... "Professor Of History and *GNU* Law" or something.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]