Re: The great BusyBox fraud continues

[David Kastrup]

RJack <user@example.net> writes:

>> On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 18:24:06 -0400, RJack wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/28/2010 8:41 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>>>> SFLC gang 'won' $90,000 + attorneys fees and costs and expenses
>>>> against LONG INSOLVENT AND ASSETS-DISSOLVED DEFENCELESS defendant
>>>> on default.
>>>>
>>>> Congrats to Eben Moglen and his underlings.

Well, that means that they don't have to pay the court costs and fees
connected with this defendant.  Quite substantial.

> You are correct. It is Westinghouse Digital. There is certainly strong
> grounds to appeal the default judgment by Westinghouse's successors in
> interest.

"Successor in interest" means you inherit the good along with the bad.
"I did not bother to defend myself" is not strong grounds for appeal.

[...]

> The damages suffered for code released under the GPL is zero since the
> GPL requires licensing "at no cost to all third parties". Hence the
> statutory damages award against Westinghouse are wildly
> disproportionate. Statutory copyright damages must bear some rational
> relationship to actual damages suffered.

With that kind of argumentation, robbing a charity should never result
in statutory damages since the goods were not to be sold for profit
anyway.  Or you could burn down a storehouse, and there would not be
"actual" damages for any items that were not already preordered.

The GPL requires licensing "at no cost to all third parties" for stuff
plaintiffs _received_ under the GPL.  But the plaintiffs are suing for
those parts they wrote themselves and copyrighted themselves.

-- 
David Kastrup