Re: Settlements

David Kastrup wrote: Causality does not necessarily imply temporal order in the legal world, because the legal _meaning_ of an act might sometimes be established only at a later point of time. Taking something in a supermarket without paying constitutes theft. The relevant activity of the theft

Re: Settlements

Hyman Rosen wrote: It doesn't matter how much you hate and disagree with this decision. In the battle of crank vs. court, court always wins. It doesn't matter how much you hate and disagree with the Supreme Court the Supreme Court always wins. In the battle of Supreme Court vs. moron, Suprem

Re: Settlements

David Kastrup wrote: [...] > You are again citing a comment rather than the law. And the particular > sentence makes little enough sense: You're incurable, stupid dak. http://heinrich.rewi.hu-berlin.de/examinatorium/BT/Internet21.pdf http://www.nomos-shop.de/_assets/downloads/Kindh%C3%A4user%2

Re: Settlements

Alexander Terekhov writes: > David Kastrup wrote: >> >> Alexander Terekhov writes: >> >> > David Kastrup wrote: >> > [...] >> >> But the point is: until I pass the cash register, there is no way of >> > >> > Uh retard dak. >> >> Ah, your standard way of saying that you have run out of argumen

Re: Settlements

David Kastrup wrote: > > Alexander Terekhov writes: > > > David Kastrup wrote: > > [...] > >> But the point is: until I pass the cash register, there is no way of > > > > Uh retard dak. > > Ah, your standard way of saying that you have run out of arguments > again. > > > http://lawww.de/Libra

Re: Settlements

Alexander Terekhov writes: > David Kastrup wrote: > [...] >> But the point is: until I pass the cash register, there is no way of > > Uh retard dak. Ah, your standard way of saying that you have run out of arguments again. > http://lawww.de/Library/242/loesung.html Answers without questions?

Re: Settlements

David Kastrup wrote: > > Alexander Terekhov writes: > > > David Kastrup wrote: > > [...] > >> Taking something in a supermarket without paying constitutes theft. The > >> relevant activity of the theft is done at the time I take the ware, the > >> status of the theft is established when I pass

Re: Settlements

David Kastrup wrote: [...] > But the point is: until I pass the cash register, there is no way of Uh retard dak. http://lawww.de/Library/242/loesung.html Hth. regards, alexander. P.S. "I'm insufficiently motivated to go set up a GNU/Linux system so that I can do the builds." Hyman Rosen T

Re: Settlements

David Kastrup wrote: [...] > Taking something in a supermarket without paying constitutes theft. The > relevant activity of the theft is done at the time I take the ware, the > status of the theft is established when I pass the cash register. Uh stupid dak. You're mistaken. http://www.frag-eine

Re: Settlements

Alexander Terekhov writes: > David Kastrup wrote: > [...] >> Taking something in a supermarket without paying constitutes theft. The >> relevant activity of the theft is done at the time I take the ware, the >> status of the theft is established when I pass the cash register. > > Uh stupid dak.

Re: Settlements

Hey dak, a nice summary... Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > David Kastrup wrote: > [...] > > Taking something in a supermarket without paying constitutes theft. The > > relevant activity of the theft is done at the time I take the ware, the > > status of the theft is established when I pass the cas

Re: Settlements

Alexander Terekhov writes: > Hyman Rosen wrote: > [...] >> Sorry, but according to CAFC, that's exactly what happens: >> >> The Artistic License also uses the traditional language of >> conditions by noting that the rights to copy, mod

Re: Settlements

On 3/2/2010 10:16 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: How on earth... Be sure to get back to me once the CAFC decision is reversed. Meanwhile, the straightforward conditions of the AL, and the GPL by extension, hold. Anyone wishing to avail themselves of the permission to copy and distribute granted

Re: Settlements

Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] > Sorry, but according to CAFC, that's exactly what happens: > > The Artistic License also uses the traditional language of > conditions by noting that the rights to copy, modify, and > distribute are grant

Re: Settlements

On 3/2/2010 8:35 AM, RJack wrote: A U.S. appeals court can issue a ruling directly contradicting the U.S. Supreme Court but it will only signify an appeals court in error Until the Supreme Court itself says otherwise, the ruling of the appeals court stands, regardless of how much you hate and d

Re: Settlements

On 3/1/2010 9:53 PM, RJack wrote: > Copying and distribution are *expressly* permitted by the Artistic license with neither scope of use restriction nor condition precedent to limit the licensed rights No, that's wrong according to CAFC: T

Re: Settlements

RJack writes: > David Kastrup wrote: > >> Well since the unlicensed use conflicts with the exclusive rights to >> copy and modification without a license, there we are. >> > > You can deem terms in a license whatever you want -- the pen is in your > hand. You can call a contractual covenant a "co

Re: Settlements

David Kastrup wrote: Well since the unlicensed use conflicts with the exclusive rights to copy and modification without a license, there we are. You can deem terms in a license whatever you want -- the pen is in your hand. You can call a contractual covenant a "condition" until you turn blue

Re: Settlements

RJack writes: > Hyman Rosen wrote: >> On 3/1/2010 2:16 PM, RJack wrote: > >> The only use involved here is copying and distribution, which are >> among the enumerated exclusive rights of the statute. > > You are finally seeing the light Hyman! Copying and distribution are > *expressly* permitted

Re: Settlements

Hyman Rosen wrote: On 3/1/2010 2:16 PM, RJack wrote: The only use involved here is copying and distribution, which are among the enumerated exclusive rights of the statute. You are finally seeing the light Hyman! Copying and distribution are *expressly* permitted by the Artistic license with

Re: Settlements

On 3/1/2010 2:16 PM, RJack wrote: Sadly your apparent inability to understand the distinction between the proposed "use" (scope restriction) and the enumerated exclusive rights themselves leaves you appearing as ignorant as ever. The only use involved here is copying and distribution, which are

Re: Settlements

Hyman Rosen wrote: On 3/1/2010 7:45 AM, RJack wrote: An unlicensed use of the copyright is not an infringement unless it conflicts with one of the specific exclusive rights conferred by the copyright statute. The infringing use is copying and distribution, exactly as specified in the copyrigh

Re: Settlements

On 3/1/2010 7:45 AM, RJack wrote: An unlicensed use of the copyright is not an infringement unless it conflicts with one of the specific exclusive rights conferred by the copyright statute. The infringing use is copying and distribution, exactly as specified in the copyright statute. __

Re: Settlements

On 3/1/2010 4:57 AM, David Kastrup wrote: Hyman Rosen writes: Having a copyright notice attached to the work defeats such a claim. No, that has nothing to do with it. Wrong. 17 USC 401(d) says: (d) Evidentiary Weight of Notice. — If a n

Re: Settlements

David Kastrup writes: > There has been some deadline in the 70s or so when things were the > other way round, so if you get hold of material definitely published > before that time by an _authorized_ publisher and without copyright > notices, you might be successful with that defense. That's what

Re: Settlements

Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/26/2010 5:21 PM, RJack wrote: Except the claimed "conditions" aren't conditions at all -- they're contractual covenants. The clear language of the Artistic License creates conditions to protect the economic rig

Re: Settlements

Hyman Rosen writes: > On 2/27/2010 10:53 AM, John Hasler wrote: >> "innocent infringement" > > Innocent infringement occurs when you have reason to believe that > a work you are copying is not under copyright. Or reason to believe you are in compliance with licensing conditions (like when licens

Re: Settlements

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 2/26/2010 5:21 PM, RJack wrote: > > Except the claimed "conditions" aren't conditions at all -- they're > > contractual covenants. > > > The clear language of the Artistic License creates conditions to Q: If you

Re: Settlements

On 2/27/2010 10:53 AM, John Hasler wrote: "innocent infringement" Innocent infringement occurs when you have reason to believe that a work you are copying is not under copyright. Having a copyright notice attached to the work defeats such a claim. In fact, in a just-decided case

Re: Settlements

On 2/26/2010 5:21 PM, RJack wrote: Except the claimed "conditions" aren't conditions at all -- they're contractual covenants. The clear language of the Artistic License creates conditions to protect the economic rights at issue in the

Re: Settlements

David Kastrup writes: > "My wife shredded all that stuff" is not seen as a valid defense in > other business matters, so this would be no difference. Due diligence > can be expected of business people. The most that "My wife shredded all that stuff" would get you is "innocent infringement"

Re: Settlements

David Kastrup wrote: [...] > > http://books.google.de/books?id=q2lkquXoZwEC > See? He now reduces this to "üblicherweise", "commonly". And then > talks about the consequences _if_ the license is given in the course of > contract formation: > > http://www.boehmanwaltskanzlei.de/mehr-/vertragsrec

Re: Settlements

Alexander Terekhov writes: > David Kastrup wrote: > > [... There is no act of contract formation ...] > > Uh crackpot dak. > > "In den Gesetzen zum Schutz des Geistigen Eigentums lassen sich > insgesamt drei verschiedene Moeglichkeiten feststellen, wie eine Lizenz > begruendet werden kann: ers

Re: Settlements

David Kastrup wrote: [... There is no act of contract formation ...] Uh crackpot dak. "In den Gesetzen zum Schutz des Geistigen Eigentums lassen sich insgesamt drei verschiedene Moeglichkeiten feststellen, wie eine Lizenz begruendet werden kann: erstens kraft staatlichen Hoheitsakts, zweiten

Re: Settlements

RJack writes: > Hyman Rosen wrote: >> On 2/26/2010 12:05 PM, RJack wrote: >>> Hyman Rosen wrote: The GPL requires that its provisions be honored as a condition of granting permission to copy and distribute a covered work. >>> >>> Back to denial already Hyman? Please identify the sectio

Re: Settlements

Alexander Terekhov writes: > Hyman Rosen wrote: > [...] >> make source available upon request. If someone copies and >> distributes a covered work using this provision but does not >> intend to honor such requests, he is infringing the copyright > > Think of someone simply changing his mind later

Re: Settlements

Alexander Terekhov writes: > Hyman Rosen wrote: >> >> On 2/26/2010 12:41 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: >> > Yes, HOCHBERG, District Judge, United States District Court for the >> > District of New Jersey, sitting by designation, wrote the baloney above. >> >> Crank vs. court. Court wins. > > Q:

Re: Settlements

Hyman Rosen writes: > On 2/26/2010 10:56 AM, RJack wrote: >> Alexander and I have gone to great lengths to explain to you the >> difference between a "condition precedent" and a "scope of use" >> condition. > > The GPL requires that its provisions be honored as a condition > of granting permissio

Re: Settlements

Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/26/2010 4:28 PM, RJack wrote: It seems that everyone in the World except a few GNUtians understand that "licensing" (the act of contract formation) doesn't require the copying and distribution of source code. Everyone understands that granting a license doesn't requir

Re: Settlements

On 2/26/2010 4:28 PM, RJack wrote: It seems that everyone in the World except a few GNUtians understand that "licensing" (the act of contract formation) doesn't require the copying and distribution of source code. Everyone understands that granting a license doesn't require anything except stat

Re: Settlements

Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/26/2010 12:05 PM, RJack wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: The GPL requires that its provisions be honored as a condition of granting permission to copy and distribute a covered work. Back to denial already Hyman? Please identify the section of 17 USC 106 where "causing" someo

Re: Settlements

On 2/26/2010 3:58 PM, RJack wrote: One can only hope that she has an opportunity to appear before the United States Supreme Court! Judges don't appear before the Supreme Court in the U.S. An unlicensed use of the copyright is not an infringement unless it conflicts with one of the specific ex

Re: Settlements

On 2/26/2010 3:55 PM, RJack wrote: An unlicensed use of the copyright is not an infringement unless it conflicts with one of the specific exclusive rights conferred by the copyright statute. The unlicensed use in these cases is copying and distribution, exactly as specified in 17 USC 106. The u

Re: Settlements

Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/26/2010 12:54 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: http://www.therobingroom.com/Judge.aspx?ID=661 She can spot a player a mile away and takes appropriate action in the name of justice. One can only hope that you have an opportunity to appear before her! One can only hope th

Re: Settlements

Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/26/2010 12:41 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Yes, HOCHBERG, District Judge, United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, sitting by designation, wrote the baloney above. Crank vs. court. Court wins. "[U]nless we wish anarchy to prevail within the feder

Re: Settlements

On 2/26/2010 12:54 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: http://www.therobingroom.com/Judge.aspx?ID=661 She can spot a player a mile away and takes appropriate action in the name of justice. One can only hope that you have an opportunity to appear before her! ___

Re: Settlements

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 2/26/2010 12:41 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > Yes, HOCHBERG, District Judge, United States District Court for the > > District of New Jersey, sitting by designation, wrote the baloney above. > > Crank vs. court. Court wins. Q: If you call a tail a leg, how many leg

Re: Settlements

On 2/26/2010 12:41 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Yes, HOCHBERG, District Judge, United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, sitting by designation, wrote the baloney above. Crank vs. court. Court wins. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing lis

Re: Settlements

Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > Hyman Rosen wrote: > > > > On 2/26/2010 12:08 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > > Stop confusing conditions v. scope limitations v. covenants, silly > > > Hyman. There is a reason why these concepts are different. > > > Bluntly calling license's obligations and limit

Re: Settlements

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 2/26/2010 12:08 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > Stop confusing conditions v. scope limitations v. covenants, silly > > Hyman. There is a reason why these concepts are different. > > Bluntly calling license's obligations and limitations "conditions" > > doesn't change a

Re: Settlements

On 2/26/2010 12:05 PM, RJack wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: The GPL requires that its provisions be honored as a condition of granting permission to copy and distribute a covered work. Back to denial already Hyman? Please identify the section of 17 USC 106 where "causing" someone "to license" a wor

Re: Settlements

On 2/26/2010 11:49 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Think of someone simply changing his mind later or just losing all the sources for some reason You.. can be a millionaire.. and never pay taxes! You can be a millionaire.. and never pay tax

Re: Settlements

Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] > make source available upon request. If someone copies and > distributes a covered work using this provision but does not > intend to honor such requests, he is infringing the copyright Think of someone simply changing his mind later or just losing all the sources for so

Re: Settlements

Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/26/2010 10:56 AM, RJack wrote: Alexander and I have gone to great lengths to explain to you the difference between a "condition precedent" and a "scope of use" condition. The GPL requires that its provisions be honored as a condition of granting permission to copy and

Re: Settlements

Stop confusing conditions v. scope limitations v. covenants, silly Hyman. There is a reason why these concepts are different. Bluntly calling license's obligations and limitations "conditions" doesn't change anything (except making things worse for the licensor/drafter). regards, alexander. P

Re: Settlements

On 2/26/2010 12:08 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Stop confusing conditions v. scope limitations v. covenants, silly Hyman. There is a reason why these concepts are different. Bluntly calling license's obligations and limitations "conditions" doesn't change anything (except making things worse for

Re: Settlements

On 2/26/2010 10:56 AM, RJack wrote: Alexander and I have gone to great lengths to explain to you the difference between a "condition precedent" and a "scope of use" condition. The GPL requires that its provisions be honored as a condition of granting permission to copy and distribute a covered

Re: Settlements

Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/26/2010 9:32 AM, RJack wrote: "As we said in Bourne, when the contested issue is the scope of a license, rather than the existence of one, the copyright owner bears the burden of proving that the defendant's copying was unauthorized under the license and the license nee

Re: Settlements

On 2/26/2010 10:42 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: "Copy and distribute the work" already happened ONE YEAR BEFORE FAILURE Permission to copy and distribute is granted on condition of honoring the GPL. Copying and distribution without honoring the provisions of the GPL infringes the copyright of

Re: Settlements

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 2/26/2010 10:35 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > Yeah, and failure to provide source code (e.g. NOT acting upon a source > > code offer) a year later after "copying and distribution of the work" is > > still "copying and distribution of the work" right silly Hyman? > >

Re: Settlements

On 2/26/2010 10:35 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Yeah, and failure to provide source code (e.g. NOT acting upon a source code offer) a year later after "copying and distribution of the work" is still "copying and distribution of the work" right silly Hyman? No, it is failure to meet the conditi

Re: Settlements

Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] > The unlicensed use was the copying and distribution of the work, > as granted exclusively to the rights holder by 17 USC 106. Yeah, and failure to provide source code (e.g. NOT acting upon a source code offer) a year later after "copying and distribution of the work" is

Re: Settlements

Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] > told the judge that they had settled. If they had settled a > little earlier, the plaintiffs would have just filed the > settlement and that would be that. When was the last time that plaintiffs in a GPL case filed a (confidential) settlement to the court to be rolled i

Re: Settlements

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 2/26/2010 10:29 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > > > Hyman Rosen wrote: > >> > >> On 2/26/2010 10:07 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > >>> When was the last time that plaintiffs in a GPL case filed a > >>> (confidential) settlement to the court to be rolled into a > >>

Re: Settlements

On 2/26/2010 10:29 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/26/2010 10:07 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: When was the last time that plaintiffs in a GPL case filed a (confidential) settlement to the court to be rolled into a > court order? What for? This is done so that the

Re: Settlements

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 2/26/2010 10:07 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > When was the last time that plaintiffs in a GPL case filed a > > (confidential) settlement to the court to be rolled into a > > court order? > > What for? This is done so that the court which was initially assigned the

Re: Settlements

On 2/26/2010 10:07 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: When was the last time that plaintiffs in a GPL case filed a (confidential) settlement to the court to be rolled into a > court order? What for? ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.or

Re: Settlements

On 2/26/2010 9:32 AM, RJack wrote: "As we said in Bourne, when the contested issue is the scope of a license, rather than the existence of one, the copyright owner bears the burden of proving that the defendant's copying was unauthorized under the license and the license need not be pleaded as an

Re: Settlements

ot. Vehemently claiming both at once looks a bit silly. >> Why else would they make the GPLed source available in the aftermath >> of the settlements? > > There are no settlements and you can't produce a copy of one. You can > only claim imaginary settlements which, of co

Re: Settlements

ignored in the future. It's obvious the defendants aren't the slightest bit intimidated by the SFLC clowns. Why else would they make the GPLed source available in the aftermath of the settlements? There are no settlements and you can&#

Re: Settlements

On 2/26/2010 8:05 AM, David Kastrup wrote: RJack writes: It's obvious the defendants aren't the slightest bit intimidated by the SFLC clowns. Why else would they make the GPLed source available in the aftermath of the settlements? He means the new defendants. Remember, to anti-

Re: Settlements

On 2/26/2010 6:47 AM, RJack wrote: Let's hope the SFLC doesn't file voluntary dismissals and cut and run once again. In each of the cases that the SFLC filed, the defendants came into compliance with the GPL once the cases ended. While anti-GPL cranks might like to characterize this as "cutting

Re: Settlements

On 2/26/2010 4:12 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: No. They advised the court because they were *in* the court. Moving targets once again, silly Hyman? No. You are trying to make something out of the lawyers in the Perfect 10 case having advised the court of the settlement. Bu

Re: Settlements

an't be relevant without the defendant agreeing to rely on its permissions. If he doesn't, it is a piece of paper irrelevant to the parties' relations and the case. > It's obvious the defendants aren't the slightest bit intimidated by > the SFLC clowns. Why else

Re: Settlements

Alexander Terekhov wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/25/2010 3:07 PM, RJack wrote: Troll vs. Hyman's fertile imagination. Troll wins another one. ROFL. No. They advised the court because they were *in* the court. Moving targets once again, silly Hyman? Yes in all previous cases SFLC delayed in

Re: Settlements

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 2/25/2010 3:07 PM, RJack wrote: > > Troll vs. Hyman's fertile imagination. Troll wins another one. ROFL. > > No. They advised the court because they were *in* the court. Moving targets once again, silly Hyman? Yes in all previous cases SFLC delayed initial conference

Re: Settlements

On 2/25/2010 3:07 PM, RJack wrote: Troll vs. Hyman's fertile imagination. Troll wins another one. ROFL. No. They advised the court because they were *in* the court. They were in the court because there was a scheduled hearing that they had to attend. If they had reached settlement earlier, the

Re: Settlements

Alexander Terekhov wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/25/2010 12:58 PM, RJack wrote: When have SFLC lawyers and any defendant company's lawyers appeared in any federal court hearing and announced a settlement? I'd be glad to acknowledge any such settlement that you can document.

Re: Settlements

On 2/25/2010 1:37 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: From pacer 2:05-cv-04753-AHM-SH End date: 2/25/2010 "02/24/2010 380 MINUTES Motion Hearing held before Judge A. Howard Matz: Court is advised that the parties have reached a settlement. When was the last time that a court in a GPL case was "advise

Re: Settlements

ent? I'd be glad to acknowledge any such settlement that you can document. Sometimes settlements are public, and sometimes they're not. Sometimes things exist and sometimes they don't exist. That's not a very profound exist

Re: Settlements

On 2/25/2010 12:58 PM, RJack wrote: > When have SFLC lawyers and any defendant company's lawyers appeared in > any federal court hearing and announced a settlement? I'd be glad to > acknowledge any such settlement that you can document.

Re: Settlements

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 2/25/2010 12:58 PM, RJack wrote: > > When have SFLC lawyers and any defendant company's lawyers appeared in > > any federal court hearing and announced a settlement? I'd be glad to > > acknowledge any such settlement that you can document. > >

Settlements

ential and wouldn’t be disclosed, Jeffrey Mausner, a lawyer for Perfect 10, said after the hearing. Anthony Malutta, a lawyer for Amazon.com, declined to comment. Sometimes settlements are public, and sometimes they're not. ___ gnu-m

some successful GPL violation settlements ..

ARP DATACON GmbH, Asus, Belkin, D-Link Germany GmbH, Edimax Technology, Fortinet Inc, Fujitsu-Siemens, Gigabyte Technologies B.V, Iliad, Longshine Technology Europe GmbH, Medion, Siemens, SVC B.u.E. GmbH, TARGA GmbH, TomTom B.V, Sitecom GmbH ... http://gpl-violations.org/ _