This will be a bit long because I'm touching on all your issues with my
previous posting.
a bit like mentioning that your stolen car had a
for-sale sign on it
A for sale sign is not any kind of agreement -
just an offer. So someone being licensed to take certain actions that are
normally reserved by the Copyright Owner is more like if you leased the car to
someone for a year with the requirement the person either buys up the car paying
for it in full or returns it and they do neither.
That's a better analogy
and I'd expect the plaintiff to mention the lease agreement and what terms were
breached when filing the complaint in Court.
I'm completely lost
when you suggest that this has anything to do with a fishing expedition,
though.
SCOG in the SCOG vs IBM case said nothing more then "IBM
infringed our copyrights". They didn't even want to clearly specify how when
the deadlines came. This allowed them to get IBM to hand over the entire AIX
history on a server. You wouldn't call IBM handing over the entire history a
fishing expedition?
Do you even know what that term
means?
Absolutely - I understand it to mean you use a flimsy charge
in able to go "fishing" for evidence. You don't have any evidence but you
expect to find something for some charge. Unless you understand the term by a
different definition?
If both sides agree that the GPL isn't worth
mentioning, that would simplify discovery
If both sides agree...
but then it seems Twin Peaks doesn't even agree the GPL is a valid license. One
of the things I've learned while following all the different cases is:
If
you don't mention it, and it's germane to the current case, you forever loose
your chance on it!
So if you're a plaintiff and you don't mention certain
evidence that can prove your claim: you don't get to present that evidence later
for the Appeal.
If you're a defendant and you don't mention certain
evidence that can prove your innocence - you don't get to raise the evidence on
appeal.
As we saw with BSF there are lawyers out there willing to do
anything including entering agreements with the other side about certain matters
then conveniently forgetting those agreements. And you want RedHat to trust
Twin Peaks? If RedHat could trust Twin Peaks, they wouldn't be in Court in the
first place.
probably-irrelevant complication
I
disagree! Since the GPL license on the code has been breached by Twin Peaks -
it's directly germane to RedHat's claims of Copyright
Infringement.
if the unapplied and thus irrelevant
license
Here's a very interesting question:
Do you work for
Twin Peaks?
Or perhaps RedHat?
I'm curious:
From the
CounterComplaint: how do you know exactly what code RedHat is claiming Twin
Peaks breached and what code Twin Peaks placed that copyright protected code
into?
In short:
What evidence can you provide to prove your claim that
the license is irrelevant to the charges?
I'm certainly willing to examine
your evidence and if you can prove the GPL is totally irrelevant to RedHat's
claims of copyright infringement, I will certainly consider revising my
position.
As for the Neimann-Marcus analogy, that fails on so many
levels, I don't even know where to begin. The complaint clearly states what
copyrights were infringed.
My statement on patents don't play a
direct role either because RedHat isn't countering with patent charges is it?
There's also no mention of Fair Use in the complaint.
I'm sorry if you
didn't get the point of what I tried to say:
A claim of copyright
infringement carries several requirements - much like most claims under the Law.
One of those requirements would be to show the infringer didn't have a license.
Another is that if they did have a license, that they breached the license.
Another would be that they didn't have Fair Use grounds.
The list is
certainly not complete, but it should be clear enough to show the point. These
points have to be proven in Court - which means they have to be disclosed sooner
or later but no later then the end of Discovery. The Neiman Marcus statement is
directly on the point of the plaintiff never wanting to show what their claim is
or what evidence they will present.
The exception - of course - is if the
defendant (Twin Peaks in this case) is going to admit to infringing CopyRights.
And I don't for an instant think they will. Otherwise, logically they would
have done so in their response.
The GPL is only relevant if the
defendants choose to try to use it as a defense, and if they have any sense, and
any halfway-competent lawyers, they won't even bother.
So you're
suggesting if they have any sense they will just admit infringing? Trebble
damages for deliberate infringement and they'll just admit they
infringed?
ROFL - if they were that ethical to take on that
responsibility, they would have complied with the license in the first
place.
So back to the very interesting question:
Do you work for
RedHat or Twin Peaks such that it puts you in the position of knowing what code
was infringed or how it was infringed to know for sure the GPL does not
apply?
Curious minds are interested in seeing your evidence as to why the
GPL does not apply.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
