Re: Blowhard Bradley Kuhn and his fraud

[Alan Mackenzie]

In gnu.misc.discuss RJack <user@example.net> wrote:
> On 8/11/2010 1:10 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>> Hello, Rjack!

>>>> There is no such thing as a "copyright enforcement agent" under
>>>> federal law. Which GNU legal beagles out there dreamed up this
>>>> idiotic fraud about the Software Freedom Conservancy? The
>>>> internet is abuzz with the sounds of utter gibberish about how
>>>> the "GPL WINS AGAIN!".

>> Some posts are so week that they barely deserve a reply.  Your
>> reasoning here falls into that category.  However, I will reply
>> nevertheless.

>> "Doing gnu enforcement" doesn't imply solely lawyers' work.  There
>> is clearly and obviously non-lawyers' work involved, all the way from
>>  high level meetings deciding strategy right down to dropping letters
>>  into the nearest postbox.

> Weak huh?

Yes.

> Mr. Kuhn has a long history of activism in actively contacting authors
> of GPL software and advising them of strategies to *legally* enforce
> copyrights. he has held sundry *paid* positions to do so.

Gosh, you mean the action of persuading people to obey the law of the
land is restricted to lawyers?  Surely not.

> Bradley would be a lawyer's dream to depose concerning his activities
> to "enforce GPL violations"

You're deluded again.

> You never mentioned his bogus claims concerning the Software Freedom
> Conservancy and "being a copyright enforcement agent". Federal law
> doesn't allow for "copyright enforcement agents" so in what capacity
> is he appearing as "President of the Software Freedom Conservancy" and
> as co-plaintiff?

The law, in any free country, allows anybody to advise another on staying
within the law.  Tax consultants do this, for example, though they tend
not to be lawyers as well.  As for "federal law" banning "copyright
enforcement agents" - I think you're just crazy.

> Tiny text strings embedded in object code isn't brillant strategy
> but if you've read the affidavits filed in the Westinghouse default
> judgment, it is interesting to note that the strategy for BusyBox suits
> against Best Buy et. al. defendants was being planned as far back as the
> year 2006 with Mr. Bradley Kuhn's help:
> http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/busybox/2006-September/024593.html

So what?  That seems like good planning.  There's nothing wrong with
being prepared for an anticipated contingency.

> Sincerely,
> RJack :)

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).