[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Blowhard Bradley Kuhn and his fraud

From: Alexander Terekhov
Subject: Re: Blowhard Bradley Kuhn and his fraud
Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2011 17:17:06 +0100

David Kastrup wrote:
> RJack <> writes:
> > On 2/3/2011 10:59 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
> >> RJack<>  writes:
> >>
> >>> On 2/2/2011 9:47 AM, RJack wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Uh... buh bye SFC and Erik Andersen:
> >>>
> >>> -------Filed 02/01/11------- ANSWER OF PHOEBE MICRO, INC.
> >>
> >> Uh, that's the reply of the defendant, not a court order.  Let's see
> >> how much of it remains after being filtered through the judge before
> >> starting to party...
> >
> > Oh Yea of little faith!
> >
> > That defendant reply agrees with all of my prior assertions in posts
> > concerning the  Best Buy Inc. debacle.
> Given your track record, that should worry them.
> > Since my reasoning is infallible, the end surely draws nigh.
> Doubtless.

Almost ten years ago "EBEN MOGLEN, ESQ" fraudster (Bradley Kuhn is his
underling) tried to obtain a preliminary injunction in a case alleging
the GPL violation:

The result was that the court found no demonstrated a substantial
likelihood of success on the merits by the plaintiffs, (2) no
irreparable harm to plaintiffs, (3) the court judged that the balance of
hardships tipped against plaintiffs, and (4) ruled that later release of
source code perfectly cures the alleged breach (utterly dismissing the
GPL "automatic termination" theory):

What makes you think that the outcome now will be any different, dak?


(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can 
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards 
too, whereas GNU cannot.)

reply via email to

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