|
From: | Rjack |
Subject: | Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar |
Date: | Wed, 18 Feb 2009 17:16:43 -0500 |
User-agent: | Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Windows/20081209) |
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com> writes:Rahul Dhesi wrote:Your baseline is wrong.No, it's not. How else should GPL enforcement work?...A disingenuous question. A victory occurs where potential wrong-doers get the message that if they violate the GPL for a period, they will end up with anet loss due to having paid damages to the copyright owner that exceed their benefit for the period of violation.
Which plaintiff has has ever paid any damages in a GPL case? Please show the court's decision or a settlement agreement of record. I have heard rumors that several defendants in GPL cases have received attorney fees due to the frivolous nature of the SFLS's cases. The SFLC has had to voluntarily dismiss *all* of their suits.
If potential wrong-doers get the message that they can violate the GPL for some years, and then cease to violate it and only pay insignificant damages, then that is a defeat for the copyright owner, not a victory.
Sincerely, Rjack :)
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |