Re: The SFLC dismissals should be coming soon

[RJack]

Rex Ballard wrote:
> On Feb 12, 7:13 am, RJack <u...@example.net> wrote:
> > SFLC voluntary dismissals should be coming soon in Best Buy et. al.
> >  case.
>
> > The SFLC cannot risk a judge actually interpreting the GPL license.
> >  The court would read the covenants in the GPL contract which Eben
> >  Moglen claims are "conditions" and quickly file the license in the
> >  court's little round filing bin -- if he didn't die laughing
> > first.
>
> The GPL license is just another copyright license.  The judges can't
>  really nullify the terms of a copyright license unless the license 
> requires that the licensee engage in criminal acts such as collusion,
>  illegal wiretapping, or fraud.  Even these restrictions vary from 
> country to country.
>
> > Another frivolous lawsuit to which the SFLC can spin:
>
> The goals of the SFLC is not to make a boatload of cash for FSF.  The
>  primary goal is to assure compliance with key license terms.

Rex, I have to agree that the goal is not to raise a boatload of cash
for the FSF. The goal is to raise a boatload of cash to pay the staff
at the SFLC. Eben Moglen and Dan Ravicher have now tapped the SFLC
public charity donations for upwards of a million dollars in salaries
and expenses.
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2009/dec/24/sflc-2009-appeal/
Simply check the SFLC's public filings as a 501(3) non-profit. The
economy is bad right now and donations are lagging. The SFLC has to make
a lot of public fund raising noise or go broke (and so goes the
attorneys and staff).

> The penalties for copyright violation provide good incentives. In the
>  United States, the penalty for violating a copyright license, for 
> illegally copying and distribution of software, is $150,000 or up to 
> 5 years in federal prison if convicted in a criminal proceeding.

WOW! I didn't know the SFLC was a branch of the United States Department
of Justice. Eric Holder a close friend?

> The cost of compliance with the GPL, providing a location where the 
> link to the source code for the GPL portions of the vendor's software
>  implementation, is just a few hundred dollars per year. Normally, 
> the SFLC issues a warning letter indicating the required actions 
> before filing the lawsuit.  If the target organization refuses to 
> comply, or after various attempts to make contact are ignored, the 
> SFLC files a lawsuit, which then REQUIRES a response, because the 
> defendant does not want to lose to a defuault judgement.

The cost to the SFLC for losing just one frivolous copyright lawsuit is
detailed in:

§ 505. Remedies for infringement: Costs and attorney's fees
In any civil action under this title, the court in its discretion may
allow the recovery of full costs by or against any party other than the
United States or an officer thereof. Except as otherwise provided by
this title, the court may also award a reasonable attorney's fee to the
prevailing party as part of the costs.

Attorney fees to litigate a copyright suit can easily run upwards of a
millon dollars.
http://www.ipmall.org/hosted_resources/IDEA/33_IDEA/33-2_IDEA_211_Bocchieri.pdf

THAT IS ANOTHER REASON WHY THE SFLC WILL NEVER ALLOW THEIR FRIVOLOUS
COMPLAINTS TO PROCEED TO COURT.

Bullshit walks and money talks. Best Buy Inc. has a market
capitalization of $15,000,000,000 (fifteen billion dollars). Do
actually think Best Buy gives a fuck about the legal propaganda noise
generated by a 501(c) public charity?

> Once the defendant realizes that communication is no longer optional,
>  the defendent's legal council usually realizes that the SFLC has a 
> strong case, and that the terms of the settlement are very 
> reasonable.

Usually but not always huh? Have you been privy to these actual matters?
I suppose that you, like some others in this group have solid knowledge
concerning *non-existent* settlements. JUST SHOW ME THE SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENTS. Your delusion about "the SFLC scared 'em out of the water"
wouldn't convince a ten year old.

> At that point, the defendant is usually advised to settle, and a
> settlement usually covers the legal costs of the plaintiffs,
> publication of the link to the location of the source code for the
> GPL licensed software and other OSS software, and pubilcation of the
> information to inform those who did not get the link in the
> documentation.

"Captain Moglen scared them out of the water!"
http://www.fini.tv/blog/finishing_line_files/a44f9390355368f87dc47b7e...
ROFL. ROFL. ROFL.

> The companies who get these lawsuits don't laugh, until they comply 
> with the settlement.  When they compare the terms of the GPL to those
>  of companies like Microsoft, Oracle, or IBM, they can laugh along 
> with the SFLC lawyers at how reasonable the GPL really is.
>
> Remember, it's not that hard to comply with the licenses and still 
> have key proprietary technology as well.  Often, it's as simple as 
> using LGPL software to interface to the GPL software, or plug-ins 
> such as Linux driver modules.
>
> For example, the earliest versions of Android had drivers compiled 
> directly into the kernel, but now most of those drivers and driver 
> interfaces have been converted to modules, allowing vendors to use 
> proprietary drivers when they don't want to give away details about 
> chip-sets.

My dog has eaten on the day each SFLC frivilous lawsuit has been
dismissed. That's a *100%* positive coefficient of correlation proving
that my dog's appetite is driving these dismissals... Moron.

Sincerely,
RJack :)