[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Attorney fees
From: |
Tim Smith |
Subject: |
Re: Attorney fees |
Date: |
Sat, 12 Jul 2008 18:57:04 -0700 |
User-agent: |
MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.3b2 (Intel Mac OS X) |
In article <85r69yn39n.fsf@lola.goethe.zz>, David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>
wrote:
> > Under that analysis, P expected to make $0 off of D's use of the
> > software, so I don't think it is likely the court would award much
> > more than that.
>
> Uh, under that analysis, D is still expected to comply with the license
> conditions. So the court would tell D to comply. But it would be a
> strange court that told P he should expect to hold up his part of the
> deal (the $0 part) while D can be excused from compliance with his part.
>
> I mean, get real.
Who said D would be excused from compliance? I sure didn't.
If P prevails, D will be ordered to stop infringing.
--
--Tim Smith
- Re: Attorney fees, (continued)
- Re: Attorney fees, David Kastrup, 2008/07/11
- Re: Attorney fees, Alexander Terekhov, 2008/07/11
- Re: Attorney fees, David Kastrup, 2008/07/12
- Re: Attorney fees, Tim Smith, 2008/07/12
- Re: Attorney fees, David Kastrup, 2008/07/12
- Re: Attorney fees, Tim Smith, 2008/07/12
- Re: Attorney fees, David Kastrup, 2008/07/12
- Re: Attorney fees, John Hasler, 2008/07/12
- Re: Attorney fees,
Tim Smith <=
- Re: Attorney fees, rjack, 2008/07/12
- Re: Attorney fees, Alexander Terekhov, 2008/07/12
- Re: Attorney fees, Hyman Rosen, 2008/07/13