[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
From: |
Alexander Terekhov |
Subject: |
Re: More FSF hypocrisy |
Date: |
Wed, 25 Mar 2009 13:52:11 +0100 |
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[...]
> Tell me, at what exact point in time does such a putative contract come
> into existence?
Listen carefully to IBM lawyers, idiot.
--------
SCO has taken source code made available by IBM under the GPL, included
that code in SCO's Linux products, and distributed significant portions
of those products under the GPL. By so doing, SCO accepted the terms of
the GPL (pursuant to GPL § 5), both with respect to source code made
available by IBM under the GPL and with respect to SCO's own Linux
distributions.
[...]
As a result of SCO's breaches of the GPL, countless developers and
users of Linux, including IBM, have suffered and will continue to suffer
damages and other irreparable injury. IBM is entitled to an award of
damages in an amount to be determined at trial and to an injunction
prohibiting SCO from its continuing and threatened breaches of the GPL.
[...]
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".). Thus, SCO's footnoted damages
argument is no basis for summary judgment as to liability. Moreover, IBM
has proffered expert evidence that it was financially damaged by SCO's
violations of the GPL.
First, as IBM expert Professor J. R. Kearl will testify at trial, under
the methodology of SCO's own experts (offered in support of SCO's
affirmative case), IBM has suffered quantifiable damages resulting from
SCO's wrongful conduct, including its GPL violations. (¶ 28; Ex. 591 ¶¶
1.C, 33-34.)
--------
--------
... the Court need not reach the choice of law issue because Utah
law and New York law are in accord on the issues that must be reached to
address SCO's sole argument on this motion, namely, that SCO did not
breach the GPL. Throughout this brief, IBM cites to both Utah law and
New York law.
--------
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.)
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, (continued)
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Alexander Terekhov, 2009/03/23
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Hyman Rosen, 2009/03/23
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Rjack, 2009/03/23
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Alan Mackenzie, 2009/03/24
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Rjack, 2009/03/24
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Alan Mackenzie, 2009/03/24
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Rjack, 2009/03/24
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Alan Mackenzie, 2009/03/25
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Rjack, 2009/03/25
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Alan Mackenzie, 2009/03/25
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy,
Alexander Terekhov <=
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Rahul Dhesi, 2009/03/25
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Alexander Terekhov, 2009/03/25
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Alan Mackenzie, 2009/03/25
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Alexander Terekhov, 2009/03/25
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Alan Mackenzie, 2009/03/25
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Alexander Terekhov, 2009/03/25
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Hyman Rosen, 2009/03/25
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Alexander Terekhov, 2009/03/25
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Hyman Rosen, 2009/03/25
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Rjack, 2009/03/25