Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption

Alexander Terekhov wrote: RJack wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: On 3/10/2010 2:17 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: here's typical outline notes regarding contractual (K) performance The GPL and other such licenses are licenses, not contracts. -- By authority of Pamela Jones and David Kastrup -- The

Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption

RJack wrote: > > Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 3/10/2010 2:17 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > >> here's typical outline notes regarding contractual (K) performance > > > > > The GPL and other such licenses are licenses, not contracts. > -- By authority of Pamela Jones and David Kastrup -- The 'auth

Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption

Alan Mackenzie writes: > Hyman Rosen wrote: >> On 3/11/2010 3:26 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>> In the system I envisage, such wouldn't normally be necessary, except >>> in complicated cases. > >> There is already small-claims court for very small cases. > > Depends on where you are. But your em

Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption

Hyman Rosen wrote: > On 3/11/2010 3:26 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> In the system I envisage, such wouldn't normally be necessary, except >> in complicated cases. > There is already small-claims court for very small cases. Depends on where you are. But your emphasis on "very" is apt for anywher

Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption

On 3/11/2010 3:26 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: In the system I envisage, such wouldn't normally be necessary, except in complicated cases. Pretty much the definition of naive. There is already small-claims court for very small cases. But generally both sides in a dispute will want the most able ad

Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption

Hyman Rosen wrote: > On 3/10/2010 12:01 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> Results should depend only on facts, not presentation. > Results also depend on written law and case law. Knowing this is the > job of lawyers. I take this to be self evident, and not in contradiction with what I have written.

Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption

RJack writes: > Hyman Rosen wrote: >> On 3/10/2010 3:03 PM, RJack wrote: >>> The Copyright Act's "pass-through permissions" provision eh? >> >> No, the license's pass-through permission. > > >> The Copyright Act gives rights holders the exclusive right to >> authorize others to copy and distribut

Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption

Hyman Rosen wrote: On 3/10/2010 3:03 PM, RJack wrote: The Copyright Act's "pass-through permissions" provision eh? No, the license's pass-through permission. The Copyright Act gives rights holders the exclusive right to authorize others to copy and distribute covered works. Yep you're ri

Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption

On 3/10/2010 3:42 PM, RJack wrote: Yeah... except there's no right to authorize others to authorize. You're seeing double when you read 17 USC sec. 106. There is no need for such a right in the case of open licenses. The rights holders authorize all recipients to copy and distribute the covered

Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption

On 3/10/2010 3:03 PM, RJack wrote: The Copyright Act's "pass-through permissions" provision eh? No, the license's pass-through permission. The Copyright Act gives rights holders the exclusive right to authorize others to copy and distribute covered works. The license expresses how the rights ho

Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption

RJack writes: > They're coming to take me away, HA HA > They're coming to take me away, HO HO HEE HEE HA HA > To the funny farm > Where life is beautiful all the time > And I'll be happy to see > Those nice, young men > In their clean, white coats > And they're coming to take me away, Ha-haaa! >

Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption

Hyman Rosen wrote: On 3/10/2010 2:35 PM, RJack wrote: "Not necessary" is a dodge -- not an answer. No dodge. Simply find a court that agrees with you on one of the many open licenses. If you can't legally define an "open" license, then don't refer to an "open" license in a legal context. You

Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption

On 3/10/2010 2:35 PM, RJack wrote: "Not necessary" is a dodge -- not an answer. No dodge. Simply find a court that agrees with you on one of the many open licenses. If you can't legally define an "open" license, then don't refer to an "open" license in a legal context. You're not allowed to m

Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption

Hyman Rosen wrote: On 3/10/2010 2:17 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: here's typical outline notes regarding contractual (K) performance The GPL and other such licenses are licenses, not contracts. -- By authority of Pamela Jones and David Kastrup -- ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL

Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption

On 3/10/2010 2:33 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: http://www.fsf.org/news/microsoft_response "We do not, however, agree with Microsoft's characterization of the situation involving GPLv3. Microsoft cannot by any act of anticipatory repudiation . . ." (from typical outline notes regarding contractu

Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption

Hyman Rosen wrote: On 3/10/2010 2:11 PM, RJack wrote: You will let me know when you find a court that legally defines what an "open" license is. Not necessary. Any one of them should do. There's a list here: "Not necessary" is a dodge -- not

Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 3/10/2010 2:17 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > here's typical outline notes regarding contractual (K) performance > > The GPL and other such licenses are licenses, not contracts. http://www.fsf.org/news/microsoft_response "We do not, however, agree with Microsoft's

Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption

On 3/10/2010 2:17 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: here's typical outline notes regarding contractual (K) performance The GPL and other such licenses are licenses, not contracts. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu

Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption

On 3/10/2010 2:11 PM, RJack wrote: You will let me know when you find a court that legally > defines what an "open" license is. Not necessary. Any one of them should do. There's a list here: ___ gnu-mi

Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 3/10/2010 12:51 PM, RJack wrote: > > ...blindly confused... > > You will let me know when another court reverses CAFC, Hey Hyman, here's typical outline notes regarding contractual (K) performance: - A. Promises and Conditions: Planned for impacting of K Promis

Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption

Hyman Rosen wrote: On 3/10/2010 12:51 PM, RJack wrote: ...blindly confused... You will let me know when another court reverses CAFC, or an equivalent court agrees with you on open licenses. You will let me know when you find a court that legally defines what an "open" license is. Sincerely

Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption

On 3/10/2010 12:51 PM, RJack wrote: ...blindly confused... You will let me know when another court reverses CAFC, or an equivalent court agrees with you on open licenses. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/

Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption

Hyman Rosen wrote: On 3/10/2010 12:21 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/artistic-license-2.0.php doesn't even use the magic word "condition"! So much about CAFC's http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf "The Artistic License states on its face that the

Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 3/10/2010 12:21 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > http://www.opensource.org/licenses/artistic-license-2.0.php > > doesn't even use the magic word "condition"! > > > > So much about CAFC's > > > > http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf > > > > "The Artistic Lic

Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption

Alan Mackenzie writes: > Hyman Rosen wrote: >> On 3/10/2010 11:33 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>> the complainant sumits his complaint in ordinary English > >> You make the same error as those who advocate writing computer >> programs in ordinary English. You need lawyers to handle lawsuits >> lik

Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption

Hyman Rosen wrote: On 3/10/2010 12:17 PM, RJack wrote: Limited strictly to one defendant in a nation of 310 million. One is greater than zero. Not in the land of GNU. Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org h

Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption

On 3/10/2010 12:21 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/artistic-license-2.0.php doesn't even use the magic word "condition"! So much about CAFC's http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf "The Artistic License states on its face that the document creates co

Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 3/10/2010 11:46 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > Hyman Rosen wrote: > >> On 3/10/2010 11:01 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > >>> On which page of http://jmri.org/k/docket/395.pdf did > >> > you manage to find a word "condition"? > >> 2. Copyright Infringement Cl

Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption

On 3/10/2010 12:17 PM, RJack wrote: Limited strictly to one defendant in a nation of 310 million. One is greater than zero. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption

On 3/10/2010 12:01 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: Results should depend only on facts, not presentation. Results also depend on written law and case law. Knowing this is the job of lawyers. The rules of procedure are not hurdles meant to impede justice. They are there to make sure that both sides ha

Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption

Hyman Rosen wrote: On 3/10/2010 11:18 AM, RJack wrote: Sigh... That's nothing new. If conditions precedent are not satisfied in a proprietary license the same thing results. The Artistic license had no conditions precedent -- only covenants. One erroneous decision by a non-precedental court is h

Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption

Hyman Rosen wrote: > On 3/10/2010 11:33 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> the complainant sumits his complaint in ordinary English > You make the same error as those who advocate writing computer programs > in ordinary English. You need lawyers to handle lawsuits like you need > programmers to write p

Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption

On 3/10/2010 11:46 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: On 3/10/2010 11:01 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: On which page of http://jmri.org/k/docket/395.pdf did > you manage to find a word "condition"? 2. Copyright Infringement Claim. ...the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s mo

Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption

On 3/10/2010 11:33 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: the complainant sumits his complaint in ordinary English You make the same error as those who advocate writing computer programs in ordinary English. You need lawyers to handle lawsuits like you need programmers to write programs, because in each cas

Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 3/10/2010 11:01 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > On which page of http://jmri.org/k/docket/395.pdf did > > you manage to find a word "condition"? > > 2. Copyright Infringement Claim. > ...the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for summary > judgment on his

Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption

RJack wrote: > The truth of the matter is that there is no victory for "open source > licenses". "Open source" licenses and "proprietary" are interpreted > using the exact same rules. You assume that this victory is part of a battle between Open Source licenses and closed source ones. There is no

Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption

Hyman Rosen wrote: > Spoken by someone who has no understanding of what legal > processes are really like. Lawsuits are slow and arduous > and expensive. That's just the nature of the legal system, > and it's difficult to see how it could be otherwise, since > each side needs to be able to presen

Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption

On 3/10/2010 11:18 AM, RJack wrote: Sigh... That's nothing new. If conditions precedent are not satisfied in a proprietary license the same thing results. The Artistic license had no conditions precedent -- only covenants. One erroneous decision by a non-precedental court is hardly a victory. The

Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption

On 3/10/2010 11:01 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: On which page of http://jmri.org/k/docket/395.pdf did > you manage to find a word "condition"? 2. Copyright Infringement Claim. ...the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on his copyright cause of action... __

Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption

Hyman Rosen wrote: On 3/10/2010 10:58 AM, RJack wrote: The truth of the matter is that there is no victory for "open source licenses". "Open source" licenses and "proprietary" are interpreted using the exact same rules. Each license (contract) is individually interpreted according to the state

Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption

On 3/10/2010 10:58 AM, RJack wrote: The truth of the matter is that there is no victory for "open source licenses". "Open source" licenses and "proprietary" are interpreted using the exact same rules. Each license (contract) is individually interpreted according to the state common law of contrac

Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption

Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] > The outcome of Jacobsen v. Katzer is a victory for open licenses, > since CAFC and the District Court on remand held that violating > license conditions for copying and distribution is copyright On which page of http://jmri.org/k/docket/395.pdf did you manage to find a

Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption

Hyman Rosen wrote: If this is victory for the little guy, I'd really hate to see what defeat is like. Yeaah... A "victory" perhaps in the district courts of Zimbabwe. "Accordingly, we deem it appropriate here to decide non-patent matters in the light of the problems faced by the district

Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption

Alexander Terekhov writes: > David Kastrup wrote: >> >> Alexander Terekhov writes: >> >> > David Kastrup wrote: >> > [...] >> >> > Uh moron Hyman. Let comrade dak translate the following for you: >> >> > >> >> > Zwangsvollstreckung (§§ 704 - 945 ZPO) >> >> >> >> No need to bother. It is utter

Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption

On 3/10/2010 9:06 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/02/22/1615259/Delicious-Details-of-Open-Source-Court-Victory > ... If this is victory for the little guy, I'd really hate > to see what defeat is like. Spoken by someone who has no understanding of what legal p

Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption

David Kastrup wrote: > > Alexander Terekhov writes: > > > David Kastrup wrote: > > [...] > >> > Uh moron Hyman. Let comrade dak translate the following for you: > >> > > >> > Zwangsvollstreckung (§§ 704 - 945 ZPO) > >> > >> No need to bother. It is utterly irrelevant to anything discussed so >

Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 3/10/2010 5:14 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > That appeal was dissmissed recently. > > The appeal was dismissed because the parties settled. > Katzer agreed to pay Jacobsen $100,000 and to never Yeah, yeah. http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/02/22/1615259/Delicious-

Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption

On 3/10/2010 5:14 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: That appeal was dissmissed recently. The appeal was dismissed because the parties settled. Katzer agreed to pay Jacobsen $100,000 and to never copy and distribute JMRI software again. ___ gnu-misc-discus

Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption

Alexander Terekhov writes: > David Kastrup wrote: > [...] >> > Uh moron Hyman. Let comrade dak translate the following for you: >> > >> > Zwangsvollstreckung (§§ 704 - 945 ZPO) >> >> No need to bother. It is utterly irrelevant to anything discussed so >> far. Not that this should surprise anyb

Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 3/9/2010 5:51 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > The CAFC vacated, not reversed. Accordingly, on remand, the district > > court determined that the injunction shall be denied on other grounds as > > well. > > The District Court said: http://jmri.org/k/docket/284.pdf "T

Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption

On 3/9/2010 5:51 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: The CAFC vacated, not reversed. Accordingly, on remand, the district court determined that the injunction shall be denied on other grounds as well. The District Court said: 2. Copyright Damages Are Available t

Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 3/9/2010 5:12 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > When CAFC is empowered to establish the law in copyright > > and/or contract matters, be sure to let me know. > > Similar courts should make similar decisions. Meanwhile, > we have a court which has upheld an open license

Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption

Hyman Rosen wrote: On 3/9/2010 5:18 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 only use in question is the copying and distribution of work without permission

Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption

On 3/9/2010 5:18 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 only use in question is the copying and distribution of work without permission of the copyright hol

Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption

On 3/9/2010 5:12 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: When CAFC is empowered to establish the law in copyright > and/or contract matters, be sure to let me know. Similar courts should make similar decisions. Meanwhile, we have a court which has upheld an open license and no court which has not (other

Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption

Hyman Rosen wrote: On 3/9/2010 5:01 PM, RJack wrote: U.S. federal district courts ignore CAFC copyright decisions There is no reason to believe that other courts would decide the matter differently, since CAFC made the correct analysis of the situation. Yeah... especially the Supreme Court:

Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption

Hyman Rosen wrote: > There is no reason to believe that other courts would decide > the matter differently, since CAFC made the correct analysis > of the situation. LOL. Said another paragon of GNU intelegence. regards, alexander. P.S. "I'm insufficiently motivated to go set up a GNU/Linux sys

Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption

Hyman Rosen wrote: On 3/9/2010 4:52 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Abraham Lincoln When CAFC is reversed by a higher court, be sure to let me know. Until then, we have no Lincoln, just an internet crank. When someone cites to the erroneous CAFC decision as copyright licensing authority let us

Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 3/9/2010 4:52 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > Abraham Lincoln > > When CAFC is reversed by a higher court, be sure > to let me know. Until then, we have no Lincoln, When CAFC is empowered to establish the law in copyright and/or contract matters, be sure to let me kn

Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption

On 3/9/2010 5:01 PM, RJack wrote: U.S. federal district courts ignore CAFC copyright decisions There is no reason to believe that other courts would decide the matter differently, since CAFC made the correct analysis of the situation. ___ gnu-misc-dis

Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption

Hyman Rosen wrote: On 3/9/2010 4:31 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: The Supreme Court of California. 159 Cal. 716, 115 P. 743 (1911). "The term 'provided' may or may not indicate a condition . . . it is often a nice question to determine whether it is a condition or a covenant and courts always

Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption

On 3/9/2010 4:52 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Abraham Lincoln When CAFC is reversed by a higher court, be sure to let me know. Until then, we have no Lincoln, just an internet crank. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://l

Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 3/9/2010 4:31 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > The Supreme Court of California. 159 Cal. 716, 115 P. 743 (1911). "The > > term 'provided' may or may not indicate a condition . . . it is often a > > nice question to determine whether it is a condition or a covenant and >

Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption

On 3/9/2010 4:31 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: The Supreme Court of California. 159 Cal. 716, 115 P. 743 (1911). "The term 'provided' may or may not indicate a condition . . . it is often a nice question to determine whether it is a condition or a covenant and courts always construe similar claus

Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 3/9/2010 3:43 PM, RJack wrote: > > Hyman Rosen wrote: > >> Copying GPL-covered works without honoring the conditions of the GPL > >> is copyright infringement, not a civil breach of contract. > > > > Only in your imagination > > No, as articulated by the court for the A

Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption

On 3/9/2010 3:43 PM, RJack wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: Copying GPL-covered works without honoring the conditions of the GPL is copyright infringement, not a civil breach of contract. Only in your imagination No, as articulated by the court for the Artistic License:

Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption

Hyman Rosen wrote: On 3/9/2010 12:20 PM, RJack wrote: Sadly Hyman, you demonstrate your inability to understand the difference between a violation of a criminal statute and a civil breach of contract. Copying GPL-covered works without honoring the conditions of the GPL is copyright infringem

Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 3/9/2010 12:22 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > Zwangsvollstreckung (§§ 704 - 945 ZPO) > > I'm insufficiently motivated to learn German just to > pick apart your undoubtedly incorrect arguments in > that language. Under the German civil law, a civil claim may be enfor

Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption

David Kastrup wrote: > > Hyman Rosen writes: > > > On 3/9/2010 12:22 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > >> Zwangsvollstreckung (§§ 704 - 945 ZPO) > > > > I'm insufficiently motivated to learn German just to > > pick apart your undoubtedly incorrect arguments in > > that language. > > No argument

Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption

David Kastrup wrote: [...] > > Uh moron Hyman. Let comrade dak translate the following for you: > > > > Zwangsvollstreckung (§§ 704 - 945 ZPO) > > No need to bother. It is utterly irrelevant to anything discussed so > far. Not that this should surprise anybody... Uh moron dak. "Ordnungshaft,

Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption

Hyman Rosen writes: > On 3/9/2010 12:22 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: >> Zwangsvollstreckung (§§ 704 - 945 ZPO) > > I'm insufficiently motivated to learn German just to > pick apart your undoubtedly incorrect arguments in > that language. No argument there, just a verbatim quote from a law utter

Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption

Hyman Rosen writes: > On 3/9/2010 12:20 PM, RJack wrote: >> Sadly Hyman, you demonstrate your inability to understand the difference >> between a violation of a criminal statute and a civil breach of contract. > > Copying GPL-covered works without honoring the conditions > of the GPL is copyright

Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption

On 3/9/2010 12:22 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Zwangsvollstreckung (§§ 704 - 945 ZPO) I'm insufficiently motivated to learn German just to pick apart your undoubtedly incorrect arguments in that language. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-di

Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption

On 3/9/2010 12:20 PM, RJack wrote: Sadly Hyman, you demonstrate your inability to understand the difference between a violation of a criminal statute and a civil breach of contract. Copying GPL-covered works without honoring the conditions of the GPL is copyright infringement, not a civil breac

Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption

Alexander Terekhov writes: > Hyman Rosen wrote: >> >> On 3/9/2010 11:50 AM, RJack wrote: >> > "... but that's not relevant". Neither is your analogy. >> >> You're wrong about that (naturally). The original conversation was >> On 3/2/2010 10:43 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: >> > David Kastrup w

Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption

Hyman Rosen wrote: On 3/9/2010 11:50 AM, RJack wrote: "... but that's not relevant". Neither is your analogy. You're wrong about that (naturally). The original conversation was On 3/2/2010 10:43 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: David Kastrup wrote: Taking something in a supermarket without payi

Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption

Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 3/9/2010 11:50 AM, RJack wrote: > > "... but that's not relevant". Neither is your analogy. > > You're wrong about that (naturally). The original conversation was > On 3/2/2010 10:43 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > David Kastrup wrote: > >> Taking something in a sup

Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption

On 3/9/2010 11:50 AM, RJack wrote: "... but that's not relevant". Neither is your analogy. You're wrong about that (naturally). The original conversation was On 3/2/2010 10:43 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > David Kastrup wrote: >> Taking something in a supermarket without paying constitutes th

Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption

Hyman Rosen wrote: Here is a story from Colorado: A person who borrowed a DVD from a public library and never returned it was arrested on a theft warrant which had been issued by the city. There was obviously no theft when the DVD was

Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption

Here is a story from Colorado: A person who borrowed a DVD from a public library and never returned it was arrested on a theft warrant which had been issued by the city. There was obviously no theft when the DVD was first borrowed, so we

Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption

Alexander Terekhov writes: > Dak, the ruling I cited is part of > http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staatsexamen for prosecutors and counsels > (both may become judges). Good thing they won't become Grammarians. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss maili

Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption

Dak, the ruling I cited is part of http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staatsexamen for prosecutors and counsels (both may become judges). Go to doctor, silly dak. 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 The Sil

Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption

Alexander Terekhov writes: > David Kastrup wrote: > [...] >> particular sentence, _and_ your attribution to the BGH as source is >> accurate (for which I don't see any evidence but consider possible), > > BGH Beschluss vom 06.10.1961 (2 StR 289/61) > NJW 1961, 2266; BGHSt 16, 271 > > http://deju

Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption

David Kastrup wrote: [...] > particular sentence, _and_ your attribution to the BGH as source is > accurate (for which I don't see any evidence but consider possible), BGH Beschluss vom 06.10.1961 (2 StR 289/61) NJW 1961, 2266; BGHSt 16, 271 http://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?G

Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption

Alexander Terekhov writes: > David Kastrup wrote: > [...] >> Whatever. When quoting isolated sentences, you better pick those with >> grammar reflecting what you consider their meaning. > > LOL. Dak are you really sure that your German is more correct than the > German of http://www.bundesgerich

Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption

David Kastrup wrote: [...] > Whatever. When quoting isolated sentences, you better pick those with > grammar reflecting what you consider their meaning. LOL. Dak are you really sure that your German is more correct than the German of http://www.bundesgerichtshof.de? Go to doctor, silly dak. re

Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption

Alexander Terekhov writes: > Uh retard dak. You wrote: > > "But the point is: until I pass the cash register, there is no way of > knowing whether I had merely been employing my pocket because I was > running out of space in my hands or because I intended to steal > something." > > That's not an

Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption

Uh retard dak. You wrote: "But the point is: until I pass the cash register, there is no way of knowing whether I had merely been employing my pocket because I was running out of space in my hands or because I intended to steal something." That's not an evidence to rebutt presumption of intent to

Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption

Alexander Terekhov writes: > For stupid dak, in English now. > > Here's a typical shoplifting statute. As usual, nothing relevant here. You do remember that we were talking about the legal _meaning_ of an act being established after the fact, because you can't determine the possible intent of t

Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption

For stupid dak, in English now. Here's a typical shoplifting statute. http://law.justia.com/missouri/codes/t36/537125.html (§ 537.125. — Shoplifting--detention of suspect by merchant--liability presumption.) "537.125. 1. As used in this section: (1) "Mercantile establishment" means any mer