Re: The Busybox/softwarefreedom.org 'won' in court (default judgment) -- where is the press release and all the buzz?

[Rjack]

Rjack wrote:
> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > http://www.terekhov.de/12.pdf
> >
> > Interesting insights on SFLC racket tactic...
> >
> > 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.)
>
> A very similar case provides some insight into default judgments:

Another case to provide insight into default judgment policy:

[begin quote]
In sum, "an extensive line of decisions" has held that Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 55(c) must be "liberally construed in order to
provide relief from the onerous consequences of defaults and default
judgments." Tolson v. Hodge, 411 F.2d 123, 130 (4th Cir.1969). And,
although the decision whether to set aside a default judgment is one
committed to the sound discretion of the district court, see
Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(c), Moradi, 673 F.2d at 727, "an abuse of discretion
in refusing to set aside a default judgment 'need not be glaring to
justify reversal.' " Jackson v. Beech, 636 F.2d 831, 835
(D.C.Cir.1980) (quoting Keegel v. Key West & Caribbean Trading Co.,
627 F.2d 372, 374 (D.C.Cir.1980)); accord Davis v. Musler, 713 F.2d
907, 913 (2d Cir.1983). We find an abuse of discretion here, and
hold that there has indeed been "good cause shown" to set aside the
entry of default. F.R.C.P. 55(c).

Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of the district court and remand
for proceedings consistent with this opinion. That action makes it
unnecessary to examine the other questions raised in the appeal and
cross-appeal."
[end quote]
Lolatchy v. Arthur Murray Inc Lolatchy, 816 F2d 951, (4th Cir.)(1987)

Sincerely,
Rack :)