Re: Blowhard Bradley Kuhn and his fraud

[RJack]

On 8/11/2010 3:25 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

> > 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.

Typical GNUtian response -- Just wish it away. License agreements aren't 
contracts and "copyright enforcement agents" abound. LMAO.

> > 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.

Attempting to prove substantial similarity for copyright infringement in 
thousands of lines of computer object code from the presence of a tiny 
text string is something only a moron would attempt.

Good luck "copyright infringement agent". LMAO.

Sincerely,
RJack :)