[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Psystar's legal reply brief in response to Apple

From: RJack
Subject: Re: Psystar's legal reply brief in response to Apple
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 15:58:36 -0000
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv: Gecko/20100802 Thunderbird/3.1.2

On 8/9/2010 4:15 PM, Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 8/9/2010 4:03 PM, RJack wrote:
It is the party accused of copyright infringement who will claim the GPL
is unenforceable by the owner of the copyright. The party accused will
claim promissory estoppel and effortlessly win.

There is no promissory estoppel, since the GPL clearly spells out
the conditions under which copying and distribution is permitted.
Only cranks and thieves can claim that they may avail themselves
of the permissions while ignoring the restrictions.

That is not even to mention that none of the parties sued by the
SFLC have "effortlessly won" or won at all.

"See Mother & Father v. Cassidy, 338 F.3d 704, 708 (7th Cir. 2003) (dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2), with prejudice, after a plaintiff gives up makes the defendant the prevailing party)";

Instead, in every case
which has ended, the defendants have made the GPLed sources properly

reply via email to

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