[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record

From: Alexander Terekhov
Subject: Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 18:55:56 +0200

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > So plaintiffs want to settle (having fruitless negotiations thus far)
> > and are asking delay of a conference meant to encourage defendants to
> > settle?
> The affidavit of service wasn't even filed until July 14.
> I expect that in this case as in so many others, court
> processes are slow and often delayed.
> The proof will be, once the case is over, whether the
> defendants properly make available the sources of the
> GPLed software that they are distributing. That most
> likely will be the case, because quoting from the
> complaint:
> <>
>      15. On February 29, 2008, through their counsel,
>          Plaintiffs notified Defendant of its unlawful
>          conduct based upon its failure to comply with
>          the License.
>      16. On April 16, 2008, Defendant’s counsel provided
>          Plaintiffs with source code which it represented
>          to be the complete and corresponding code for the
>          GPL-licensed software on the Infringing Products.
>          Plaintiffs initiated a technical review of the source
>          code and communicated to Defendant their other demands
>          for settlement of the matter.
>      17. On April 25, 2008, through their counsel, Plaintiffs
>          notified Defendant that the source provided did not
>          include “scripts used to control compilation and
>          installation of the executable,” and therefore did not
>          constitute “complete and corresponding source code”
>          within the meaning of the license.
>      18. Defendant has not responded to Plaintiff’s April 25
>          notice, and continues to distribute the Infringing
>          Products and Firmware in violation of Plaintiffs’
>          exclusive rights under the Copyright Act.
> This means that, as usual, the defendants don't want to be
> bothered with the GPL requirements, but once they're being
> sued, they'll finally bite the bullet and do it right. Then
> the SFLC will move to have the case dismissed, and you'll
> once again treat it as a failure rather than a victory.

Man oh man. Hyman Rosen managed to find out that SFLC wants scripts...
yet "PRAYER FOR RELIEF" doesn't mention scripts. 

Pre-trial conference:

Judge: What's the issue?

Defendants: SFLC wants scripts...

Judge: What does that have to do with copyright infringement?

Defendants: No idea. BTW, they've not registered copyrights and you lack
jurisdiction, judge.

Judge: (To SFLC) &*^$%%#$$%$##&^%$*^(&^% Case dismissed.


(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.)

reply via email to

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