[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 15:59:13 -0000
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv: Gecko/20100802 Thunderbird/3.1.2

On 8/12/2010 11:19 AM, Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 8/11/2010 6:16 PM, devil_dude wrote:
If you don't want to participate in a discussion group

I regard paying money in order to rebut cranks as one of the
silliest things I could possibly do, especially since they are
generally easily refuted with free information.

In the case of "tiny text strings", even without the source document
 I'm positive that the cranks are lying as usual. I would guess that
 the "tiny text strings" are used when trying to determine whether
someone is copying and distributing GPLed code, that is, as part of
the initial investigation. Once this determines that infringement is
 likely, the "tiny text strings" don't have to be used to prove
similarity. When the lawsuit goes to the discovery phase, the
defendants can simply be asked whether they are copying and
distributing the program in question.

ROFL. From the complaint:

"20. Mr. Andersen is the author and developer of the BusyBox computer
program, and the owner of copyrights in that computer program. BusyBox
is a single computer program that comprises a set of computing tools and
optimizes them for computers with limited resources, such as cell
phones, PDAs, and other small, specialized electronic devices. BusyBox
is extremely customizable, fast, and flexible, and, on information and
belief, is used in countless products sold by many manufacturers all
over the World."

1) The firmware is manufactured by overseas companies "all over the
world" -- not the defendants. All the defendants have to answer at
deposition is "we don't know for sure". The burden is on plaintiff
Andersen to prove his case by demonstrating "substantial similarity"
to a jury of his peers.

2) "BusyBox is extremely customizable" (think Makefiles), so -- how does
plaintiff Andersen know *which* binary object bytes were written by him
(and not the multitude of *other* code owners in BusyBox) and are
present the firmware?

The question of "substantial similarity" is a matter of fact to be
determined by a jury. The jury I'm sure will hear from defense expert
witnesses with PhDs hanging around their necks.

Hyman, you're naivety at what the defendant's very experienced law firms
may bring to this case is astounding.

RJack :)

reply via email to

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