[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: EASTERBROOK's "quick look" on the GPL and Wallace's claim
From: |
Alexander Terekhov |
Subject: |
Re: EASTERBROOK's "quick look" on the GPL and Wallace's claim |
Date: |
Thu, 09 Nov 2006 20:48:38 +0100 |
Lee Hollaar wrote:
[...]
> The short version can be summed up by this sentence from the opinion:
> "This does not assist Williams, however, because his legal theory is
> faulty substantively."
EASTERBROOK's "quick look" (or rather utterly drunken) interpretation
of Wallace legal theory (note that it's Williams legal theory not
Wallace legal theory he's talking about :-) ) is certainly faulty
substantively, I agree. To me it appears that EASTERBROOK invented a
theory (derivative of Wallace legal theory) and ruled himself on its
validity affirming that it's faulty.
How fascinating. But that's not what Wallace paid 455 bucks for.
regards,
alexander.
Re: EASTERBROOK's "quick look" on the GPL and Wallace's claim, Lee Hollaar, 2006/11/09
Re: EASTERBROOK's "quick look" on the GPL and Wallace's claim, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/11/09
Re: EASTERBROOK's "quick look" on the GPL and Wallace's claim, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/11/09
Re: EASTERBROOK's "quick look" on the GPL and Wallace's claim, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/11/09
Re: EASTERBROOK's "quick look" on the GPL and Wallace's claim, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra, 2006/11/10
Re: EASTERBROOK's "quick look" on the GPL and Wallace's claim, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/11/10
Re: EASTERBROOK's "quick look" on the GPL and Wallace's claim, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/11/10