Re: SFLC is SOL

[RJack]

David Kastrup wrote:
> Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:
>
> > David Kastrup wrote: [...]
> > > > This means that the SFLC cannot file a vouluntary dismissal
> > > > without the permission of Best Buy Inc.
> > > There is no such thing as "filing an unvoluntary dismissal".
> > Uh retard dak.
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Involuntary_dismissal
> >
> > "Involuntary dismissal is the termination of a court case despite
> > the plaintiff's objection.
>
> And just how (and why) would a plaintiff actually _file_ an
> involuntary dismissal?  I never said there _was_ no such thing as an
> involuntary dismissal, but it certainly can't be _filed_ by a party.

If you are so smart at interpreting the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, why are you so dumb at grasping doctrines like preemption
and promissory estoppel?

Could it be that you actually know the GPL is preempted and thus GPL
code is quasi-public domain due to promissory estoppel? Perhaps your
feigned ignorance is just stubbornness (like Hyman Rosen)?

Sincerely,
RJack :)