Re: Wallace case FAQ for dummies v1.5

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:

> 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?
>
> Consider:
>
> http://www.denbar.org/group/index.cfm?category=1105&EntityID=DBA
>
> "... 
>  COURTESY AND CIVILITY
>
>          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
> http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/research-agenda.html 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.

Both your delusions and obsessive compulsive behavior are not pretty.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum