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

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

Re: SFLC files 2nd intimidation suit


From: rjack
Subject: Re: SFLC files 2nd intimidation suit
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 18:21:05 -0500
User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031)

Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Wed, Nov 21, 2007 at 08:42:12AM -0500, rjack wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
If either case filed is heard before a judge, it would be the first time
that a GPL infringement lawsuit has gone to trial in the U.S.
The SFLC will NEVER, NEVER allow their bluff to be called by "going to trial". If they did, the Court (perhaps sua sponte) would dismiss for lack of plaintiff's standing. The SFLC will voluntarily dismiss before any Rule 12 Motion to Dismiss is ever filed.

I suppose in your view all other lawyers are definitely dumb ('cause
you're so damn smart) and they didn't study law at all and get all
frightened for nothing then.

To me, since they have always agreed to fulfill their obligations, pay
damages, etc... it would seem like the lawyers concluded that whatever
the outcome would be, they would be in a much worse shape by not complying
with the Fair Terms of The License, and decided not to suffer the (court
mandated) consequences.

That's the best way you win in "court": buy not getting to court.

Rui




I suppose in your view all other lawyers are definitely dumb ('cause
you're so damn smart) and they didn't study law at all and get all
frightened for nothing then.

I don't all lawyers are dumb. You have mistaken me for the late Chief Justice Warren Burger, who lamented, "75 to 90 percent of American trial lawyers are incompetent, dishonest, or both."

Since I have never seen evidence of defendant's counsel of record appearing in any case filed by the SFLC perhaps you will enlighten me as to who those poor frightened ambulance chasers might be.

:)


reply via email to

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