Re: The great BusyBox fraud continues

[RJack]

On 8/6/2010 2:03 AM, voodoo wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Aug 2010 00:00:31 -0400, RJack wrote:
>
> > On 8/5/2010 9:13 PM, voodoo wrote:
> > > On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 18:24:06 -0400, RJack wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 7/28/2010 8:41 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > > > > SFLC gang 'won' $90,000 + attorneys fees and costs and
> > > > > expenses against LONG INSOLVENT AND ASSETS-DISSOLVED
> > > > > DEFENCELESS defendant on default.
> > > > >
> > > > > Congrats to Eben Moglen and his underlings.
> > > > >
> > > > > LOL.
> > > > Uh... PJ over at Groklaw says the default judgment against
> > > > Western Digital proves, "Of course, to collect the money, the
> > > > plaintiffs must
> > >
> > > that would be westinghouse digital. westinghouse is that company
> > >  from the last century that makes heavy electric equipment.
> > >
> > > western digital makes disk drives and is not a part of this
> > > issue.
> >
> > You are correct. It is Westinghouse Digital. There is certainly
> > strong grounds to appeal the default judgment by Westinghouse's
> > successors in interest.


> How long have they got to start the appeal process?

I doubt they'll appeal. The attorney fees for our modern day legal
robber barons are too much to justify an appeal.

The SFLC's Dan Ravicher filed a series of copyright cases which he moved
to voluntarily dismiss without a stipulated settlement (he failed to
plead any copyright registrations). For this the court thinks he's worth
$550 per hour.

Sincerely,
RJack :)