Re: "News" Verizon calls SFLC bluff

[Linonut]

* rjack peremptorily fired off this memo:

> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>> 
>> I suspect that Verizon folks simply told SFLC that they are ready to
>> raise a whole bunch of defenses resulting (if successful) in
>> enforceability of GPL'd copyrights once and for all (e.g. doctrine of
>> copyright misuse) and, even if that fails, they'll move to dismiss
>> SFLC's *copyright infringement* claim on the grounds spelled by Judge
>> White in Jacobsen case... 
>
> You are absolutely correct. There are no valid scope of use restrictions 
> on the grant of rights contained in the GPL -- only [unenforceable] 
> contractual covenants. The SFLC will *never* allow a lawsuit to proceed 
> to the stage where a federal court actually reviews a Motion to Dismiss
> under Rule 12 of the F.R.C.P. The only tool in the SFLC's legal arsenal 
> to back up their bluster is the face saving of Rule 41 of the F.R.C.P. 
> (Voluntary Dismissal) under mysterious "undisclosed" terms.

Then why did they bother?  And, if SFLC was at such a disadvantage, why
wouldn't big ol' Verizon just go ahead and let little ol' SFLC take its
beating in court?

> ROFL:

That says it all.

-- 
The idea that Bill Gates has appeared like a knight in shining armour to lead
all customers out of a mire of technological chaos neatly ignores the fact that
it was he who, by peddling second-rate technology, led them into it in the
first place.
   -- Douglas Adams