[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar

From: Alan Mackenzie
Subject: Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 19:29:49 +0000 (UTC)
User-agent: tin/1.6.2-20030910 ("Pabbay") (UNIX) (FreeBSD/4.11-RELEASE (i386))

In gnu.misc.discuss Rjack <> wrote:
> Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>> Would you format your paragraphs properly in future, please?
>> In gnu.misc.discuss amicus_curious <> wrote:
>>> So they [SFLC] didn't suddenly "become aware" of anything at 
>>> all.  They just became suddenly aware that they were out to 
>>> lunch on the law and were about to have their case tossed out 
>>> of court, so they surrendered, begging Verizon to not make an 
>>> issue of things and probably paying for Verizon's costs.  It 
>>> was a total loss.
>> That's not the way the SFLC sees it.  On 
>> we have:
>> As a result of the plaintiffs agreeing to dismiss the lawsuit and
>>  reinstate Actiontec's and its customer's rights to distribute 
>> BusyBox under the GPL, Actiontec has agreed to appoint an Open 
>> Source Compliance Officer within its organization to monitor and 
>> ensure GPL compliance, to publish the source code for the version
>>  of BusyBox it previously distributed on its Web site, and to 
>> undertake substantial efforts to notify previous recipients of 
>> BusyBox from Actiontec and its customers, including Verizon, of 
>> their rights to the software under the GPL. The settlement also 
>> includes an undisclosed amount of financial consideration paid to
>>  the plaintiffs by Actiontec.

> That a self-serving 100% *unverifiable* claim from the SFLC.

It's 100% verifiable.  SFLC will have the relevant documents with which
to verify it.  They see no need to do so.  Presumably, if what they
have posted on their site were economical with the truth, Actiontec would
have posted some sort of correction on Actiontec's own website.

Perhaps you would be good enough to point out the URL where Actiontec's
version of the story is posted, so we can compare it with the SFLC's.

> The defendant's agreed to dismiss the lawsuit WITH PREJUDICE and
> agreed to cease filing any future frivolous lawsuits:

The defendant's greed probably had nothing to do with the dismissal of
the case.  Did Verizon really agree not to file future frivolous

However, if the SFLC's version of events is accurate, then Verizon were
distributing a device containing unlicensed software.  So the owners of
BusyBox were quite justified in suing Verizon.

> Sincerely,
> Rjack :)

Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

reply via email to

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