[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: CAFC took JMRI case under advisement

From: rjack
Subject: Re: CAFC took JMRI case under advisement
Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2008 12:03:33 -0400
User-agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20080421)

Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
I still fail to understand what you find shocking
about the citation of Nimmer.
Go and drop am email to Nimmer et. al. asking whether a copyright
license is a contract or not. Let us know about his response.
No, I don't think I will.

People quote all sorts of stuff in lawsuits. In the case of this
brief, it claims that a license is sufficiently like a contract
that you can make similar claims for infringement.

Here's an idea - why don't you go ahead and willfully defy the
GPL on some piece of code, get yourself sued, and see how it all
works out.

We all know how it works out.

1. Ignoring jurisdictional requirement SFLC files a complaint
(warranting atomatic dismissal).

2. Shortly thereafter SFLC moves to dismiss the case WITH PREJUDICE
against own clients (without any stipulation of settlement).

3. A face-saving press release appears claiming a "settlement" with
NON-DEFENDANT third party.

4. Defendant continues wilfully defy the GPL (from now on with impunity
due to res judicata since the case was dismissed WITH PREJUDICE against


(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.

The most accurate summary of the bogus SFLC cases I have ever read.

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

reply via email to

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