gnu-misc-discuss
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Blowhard Bradley Kuhn and his fraud


From: RJack
Subject: Blowhard Bradley Kuhn and his fraud
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 15:58:45 -0000
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.8) Gecko/20100802 Thunderbird/3.1.2

Blowhard Bradley Kuhn, president of the Software Freedom Conservancy is
at it again. He recently opined, "Usually, anytime I do GPL enforcement
for BusyBox the facts are never in dispute. The typical situation is
that a firmware is distributed on the device that clearly contains
BusyBox and no source nor offer for source code is included. So it was
with Westinghouse."
http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/reports/7145/1/

Mr. Kuhn who is a computer science major, is "enforcing the GPL".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_M._Kuhn

How's that for a frank admission of the unauthorized practice of law (a
criminal offense in many jurisdictions)?

Mr. Kuhn conveniently forgot to mention the prevailing law of
the Second Federal Circuit where the Best Buy Inc. cases are being heard:

"The Copyright Act authorizes only two types of claimants to sue for
copyright infringement: (1) owners of copyrights, and (2) persons who
have been granted exclusive licenses by owners of copyrights.[Note 3]

[Note 3] ... We do not believe that the Copyright Act permits holders of
rights under copyrights to choose third parties to bring suits on their
behalf. While F.R.Civ.P. 17(a) ordinarily permits the real party in
interest to ratify a suit brought by another party, see Urrutia Aviation
Enterprises v. B.B. Burson & Associates, Inc., 406 F.2d 769, 770 (5th
Cir.1969); Clarkson Co. Ltd. v. Rockwell Int'l Corp., 441 F.Supp. 792
(N.D.Calif.1977), the Copyright Law is quite specific in stating that
only the "owner of an exclusive right under a copyright" may bring suit.
17 U.S.C. Sec.  501(b) (Supp. IV 1980)."; Eden Toys Inc v. Florelee
Undergarment Co Inc, 697 F.2d 27 (2nd Cir 1983).

There is no such thing as a "copyright enforcement agent" under federal
law. Which GNU legal beagles out there dreamed up this idiotic fraud
about the Software Freedom Conservancy? The internet is abuzz with the
sounds of utter gibberish about how the "GPL WINS AGAIN!".

Sincerely,
RJack :)


reply via email to

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