[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Blowhard Bradley Kuhn and his fraud

From: RJack
Subject: Re: Blowhard Bradley Kuhn and his fraud
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 15:59:01 -0000
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv: Gecko/20100802 Thunderbird/3.1.2

On 8/11/2010 3:25 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

You never mentioned his bogus claims concerning the Software Freedom
Conservancy and "being a copyright enforcement agent". Federal law
doesn't allow for "copyright enforcement agents" so in what capacity
is he appearing as "President of the Software Freedom Conservancy" and
as co-plaintiff?

The law, in any free country, allows anybody to advise another on staying
within the law.  Tax consultants do this, for example, though they tend
not to be lawyers as well.  As for "federal law" banning "copyright
enforcement agents" - I think you're just crazy.

Typical GNUtian response -- Just wish it away. License agreements aren't contracts and "copyright enforcement agents" abound. LMAO.

Tiny text strings embedded in object code isn't brillant strategy
but if you've read the affidavits filed in the Westinghouse default
judgment, it is interesting to note that the strategy for BusyBox suits
against Best Buy et. al. defendants was being planned as far back as the
year 2006 with Mr. Bradley Kuhn's help:

So what?  That seems like good planning.  There's nothing wrong with
being prepared for an anticipated contingency.

Attempting to prove substantial similarity for copyright infringement in thousands of lines of computer object code from the presence of a tiny text string is something only a moron would attempt.

Good luck "copyright infringement agent". LMAO.

RJack :)

reply via email to

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