Re: Red Hat pays $800,000 + costs for a patent deal

[rjack]

Linonut wrote:


> Are you contemptuous of this proprietary entity?
>
> http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=2005010107100653
>
> Microsoft Litigation
>
> Narrow-minded (and perhaps naive) idiot.

How could anyone be contemptuous of anything posted at the exquisitely
researched Groklaw blog? Well... just maybe:

"The GPL is a License, Not a Contract, Which is Why
the Sky Isn't Falling
Sunday, December 14 2003 @ 09:06 PM EST
Contributed by: PJ"
http://gl.scofacts.org/gl-20031214210634851.html

Hmmm... Perhaps a little fact checking is in order when reading
Free Software propaganda. From the United States Court of Appeals for 
the Seventh Circuit:

"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. Kennedy v. Nat'l Juvenile Det. Ass'n, 187 
F.3d 690, 694 (7th Cir.1999)."
http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/463/463.F3d.749.05-1172.html

Sincerely,
Rjack :)

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our 
inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the 
state of facts and evidence." -- John Adams, 'Argument in Defense of the 
Soldiers in the Boston Massacre Trials,' December 1770