Re: SFLC files 2nd intimidation suit
Tim Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On 2007-11-21, rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The designated donee beneficiaries of the GPL are obviously all third parties. Clearly the plaintiffs are parties to the GPL contract and cannot be a member of the class all third parties. Therefore the plaintiffs can suffer no injury by the source code not being made available to all third parties. Their injury is the use of the copyrighted work in a manner that they have not agreed to. That's not an injury. That is just the base for complaint. The injury is a loss of reputation, a loss of job opportunity, a loss of potential reciprocal contributions and even a potential loss of proprietary licensing or at least proprietary contracts. Basically you can ask how much money did they save? Now the defendant might use the defense but if we had been planning for actually paying people rather than ripping them off, we would not have started the project at all since it would not have been profitable then. But you better hire a darn brilliant lawyer if you want to get your punishment reduced because you consistently and from the start relied on a business plan involving defrauding the customers and misappropriating copyrighted material. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC files 2nd intimidation suit
Tim Smith wrote: On 2007-11-21, rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The designated donee beneficiaries of the GPL are obviously all third parties. Clearly the plaintiffs are parties to the GPL contract and cannot be a member of the class all third parties. Therefore the plaintiffs can suffer no injury by the source code not being made available to all third parties. Their injury is the use of the copyrighted work in a manner that they have not agreed to. To constitute copyright infringement an action must be capable of violating an author's 17 USC sec. 106 exclusive rights in the absence of any license at all. Requiring distribution of another author's modifications in a derivative work is not one of the exclusive rights enumerated under 17 USC sec. 106 and cannot lead to a charge of copyright infringement. The alleged violation of the GPL (failure to distribute another author's modifications) is a contractual requirement that names it's designated donee beneficiaries as all third parties. :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC files 2nd intimidation suit
On 2007-11-24, David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But you better hire a darn brilliant lawyer if you want to get your punishment reduced because you consistently and from the start relied on a business plan involving defrauding the customers and misappropriating copyrighted material. Sounds like Google? Arnoud -- Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch European patent attorney - Speaking only for myself Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/ Arnoud blogt nu ook: http://blog.iusmentis.com/ ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC files 2nd intimidation suit
rjack wrote: The designated donee beneficiaries of the GPL are obviously all third parties. Clearly the plaintiffs are parties to the GPL contract and cannot be a member of the class all third parties. Therefore the plaintiffs can suffer no injury by the source code not being made available to all third parties. The third parties here are all who are neither the donor nor the donee. And under US law it is not necessary for a copyright owner to show actual injury. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI USA ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC files 2nd intimidation suit
Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On 2007-11-24, David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But you better hire a darn brilliant lawyer if you want to get your punishment reduced because you consistently and from the start relied on a business plan involving defrauding the customers and misappropriating copyrighted material. Sounds like Google? So where do they plead for reduced punitive damages because they never intended to recompensate anybody in the first place? Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch European patent attorney - Speaking only for myself Probably better that you speak for nobody else. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC files 2nd intimidation suit
David Kastrup wrote: Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On 2007-11-24, David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But you better hire a darn brilliant lawyer if you want to get your punishment reduced because you consistently and from the start relied on a business plan involving defrauding the customers and misappropriating copyrighted material. Sounds like Google? So where do they plead for reduced punitive damages because they never intended to recompensate anybody in the first place? Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch European patent attorney - Speaking only for myself Probably better that you speak for nobody else. Hands off Arnie, GNUtian dak! Google is 100 percent felon under GNU Law (just like the latest SFLC's targets Xterasys Corporation and High-Gain Antennas): http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:14537 http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:14540 http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:14550 regards, alexander. -- Plaintiffs copyrights are unique and valuable property whose market value is impossible to assess -- SOFTWARE FREEDOM LAW CENTER, INC. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC files 2nd intimidation suit
On 2007-11-24, David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On 2007-11-24, David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But you better hire a darn brilliant lawyer if you want to get your punishment reduced because you consistently and from the start relied on a business plan involving defrauding the customers and misappropriating copyrighted material. Sounds like Google? So where do they plead for reduced punitive damages because they never intended to recompensate anybody in the first place? Google's attitude is basically we copy everyone's stuff, and you can opt out if you know how. That's not how copyright law works. Arnoud -- Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch European patent attorney - Speaking only for myself Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/ Arnoud blogt nu ook: http://blog.iusmentis.com/ ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC files 2nd intimidation suit
Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On 2007-11-24, David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On 2007-11-24, David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But you better hire a darn brilliant lawyer if you want to get your punishment reduced because you consistently and from the start relied on a business plan involving defrauding the customers and misappropriating copyrighted material. Sounds like Google? So where do they plead for reduced punitive damages because they never intended to recompensate anybody in the first place? Google's attitude is basically we copy everyone's stuff, and you can opt out if you know how. That's not how copyright law works. So where do they plead for reduced punitive damages because they never intended to recompensate anybody in the first place? Focus. That was what I was talking about and what you pretended replying to. If you want to foam at your mouth about Google, feel free to start a new thread when your comment is completely irrelevant to the current posting. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
