|
|
|
| Authored by: Wol on Saturday, September 15 2012 @ 10:32 AM EDT |
I would have thought that would be a pretty decent case of "information and
belief".
Yes it is a bit of a fishing trip, but if you go to a Judge and say "this
previous case resulting in the plaintiff folding spectacularly and it's this
code that appears to be involved ... I own a chunk of that code ... can you give
me discovery on just that to see if I can find anything ..."
It's not a fishing trip if you can point at a particular piece of code and say
"that looks suspicious". (Plus, how many external consultants does Red
Hat use? Would they keep silent? Would Red Hat want to or be able to buy them
off? What if those consultants actually personally own a load of code Red Hat
paid them to write?)
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tknarr on Saturday, September 15 2012 @ 02:09 PM EDT |
In this case I'd think a good path would be "RedHat has done discovery on the
code in question, and has informed me that they've found code matching mine at
these locations in these files in Twin Peaks' software. I have a sworn affidavit
from RedHat attesting to this.". That should be sufficient grounds to get at
least discovery on that specific code, and if you find copying that should give
grounds for doing discovery on the entire codebase. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
