[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Settlements
From: |
John Hasler |
Subject: |
Re: Settlements |
Date: |
Sat, 27 Feb 2010 09:53:09 -0600 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux) |
David Kastrup writes:
> "My wife shredded all that stuff" is not seen as a valid defense in
> other business matters, so this would be no difference. Due diligence
> can be expected of business people.
The most that "My wife shredded all that stuff" would get you is
"innocent infringement"
<http://itlaw.wikia.com/wiki/Innocent_infringement> (but you will have
to show that you stopped infringing the instant you were notified by the
plaintiff). Damages may be reduced but probably not eliminated and
an injunction will still issue. Since cessation of infringement is what
the SFLC asks for this would be rather useless.
--
John Hasler
jhasler@newsguy.com
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
- Re: Settlements, (continued)
- Re: Settlements, RJack, 2010/02/26
- Re: Settlements, Hyman Rosen, 2010/02/26
- Re: Settlements, Alexander Terekhov, 2010/02/26
- Re: Settlements, Hyman Rosen, 2010/02/26
- Re: Settlements, RJack, 2010/02/26
- Re: Settlements, Hyman Rosen, 2010/02/26
- Re: Settlements, David Kastrup, 2010/02/27
- Re: Settlements,
John Hasler <=
- Re: Settlements, Hyman Rosen, 2010/02/28
- Re: Settlements, RJack, 2010/02/26
- Re: Settlements, Hyman Rosen, 2010/02/26
- Re: Settlements, RJack, 2010/02/26
- Re: Settlements, Hyman Rosen, 2010/02/26
- Re: Settlements, RJack, 2010/02/26
- Re: Settlements, Hyman Rosen, 2010/02/28
- Re: Settlements, David Kastrup, 2010/02/27
- Re: Settlements, Alexander Terekhov, 2010/02/27
- Re: Settlements, David Kastrup, 2010/02/27