gnu-misc-discuss
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: CAFC took JMRI case under advisement


From: Alexander Terekhov
Subject: Re: CAFC took JMRI case under advisement
Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 00:51:12 +0200

amicus_curious wrote:
> 
> "Alexander Terekhov" <address@hidden> wrote in message
> news:address@hidden
> > Post-argument briefs:
> >
> > http://jmri.net/k/docket/cafc-pi-1/39.pdf
> > (JMRI's post-argument "citation of supplemental authority")
> >
> > http://jmri.net/k/docket/cafc-pi-1/40.pdf
> > (Amici's "response")
> >
> > http://jmri.net/k/docket/cafc-pi-1/41.pdf
> > (Katzer's response)
> >
> > I'm shocked by Amici's citation of Nimmer on Copyright talking about
> > "appropriate contractual provisions" and "appropriate contract
> > construction"... What!? I thought that licenses are not contracts in
> > "free as in free speech" world.
> >
> There is a recording of the oral arguments (or lack thereof) at
> http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/oralarguments/mp3/2008-1001.mp3
> 
> It seems to me that an appropriate punishment for presenting such nonsense
> from both sides should be that both attorneys are barred from ever
> litigating in court again.  Clearly neither knew how to present a case.
> 
> The amicus brief file by Moglen and his minions framed the issue pretty
> squarely:
> 
> "The District Court's decision that the asserted violations of the Artistic
> License at issue in this case sound in contract, not copyright, was
> erroneous. If the
> decision were applied broadly, it could disrupt the settled expectations of
> literally
> millions of copyright holders who have depended upon the copyright system to
> secure the right to enforce public licenses....

Yeah, yeah. "Literally millions of copyright holders"... except MySQL

http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/MySQLcounterclaim.pdf
("COUNT VIII Breach of Contract (GPL License)"

                       COUNT VIII 
              Breach of Contract (GPL License)
              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

(subsequent motion for preliminary injunction was denied
<http://pacer.mad.uscourts.gov/dc/opinions/saris/pdf/progress%20software.pdf>)

and IBM (literally mentioned in Amici's "response" brief)

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20061123091221786
(The GPL, Stage Front and Center - IBM Answers SCO's Attack)

"SCO's GPL violations entitle IBM to at least nominal damages on the
Sixth Counterclaim for breach of the GPL. See Bair v. Axiom Design LLC
20 P.3d 388, 392 (Utah 2001) (explaining that it is "well settled"
that nominal damages are recoverable upon breach of contract); Kronos,
                                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Inc. v. AVX Corp., 612 N.E.2d 289, 292 (N.Y. 1993)  ("Nominal damages
are always available in breach of contract action".). "
                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

See the phrase "breach of contract"?

LOL.

regards,
alexander.

--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards
too, whereas GNU cannot.)


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]