|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 11:42 PM EDT |
This might be even longer. :)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.
xtifr's analogy is far better. In an auto lease, the two
parties would have met and agreed to terms. That didn't happen here. Red Hat was
in no position to say that Twin Peaks even took note of the GPL. xtifr's analogy
doesn't support xtifr's argument, though. If a car was stolen, the owner would
be expected to indicate that the car was taken without the owner's agreement.
That still gets into the subject of what, if anything, did the owner permit the
person taking the car to do. In this case, the GPL specifies what the owner
allowed anyone taking the software to do, so it would be appropriate to mention
it.
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?
I
certainly wouldn't say so, but you aren't asking what you meant to ask. Even if
you had asked what you meant to ask, it wouldn't be relevant. No one was talking
about IBM or AIX or SCO (which is what I think you were thinking
about).
I certainly can't blame xtifr for being confused about what you
meant. What you said was:I applaud RedHat for performing the due
diligence we expect out of others and clearly stating what they believe the
plaintiff did wrong.... rather then [sic] [some completely random thing
involving SCO, IBM and a fishing expedition]. You went out of your
way to praise Red Hat for doing something better than what SCO did. That
certainly was random and darned thin praise, too. You could have just as well
praised Red Hat for not poaching elephants or hiring the mafia to eliminate the
competition or whatever. It's not surprising that some people would jump to the
wrong conclusion about what you meant.
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!
You don't seem to understanding
xtifr's (mistaken, IMO) argument at all. It's as if you aren't aware that your
argument cuts both ways. Once you mention something, your opponent can use it
against you. Furthermore, you don't how your opponent might use it, so it's best
to not say anything unless it helps your side.
xtifr seems to be
considering this: If Red Hat had not released the software under the GPL, then
Twin Peaks wouldn't have had any rights at all regarding the software. So why
mention it? Why not force Twin Peaks to explain whatever rights Twin Peaks had?
If Twin Peaks doesn't bother saying that they had some rights, why not let the
court think that Twin Peaks had no rights at all? To put it another way,
assuming Twin Peaks copied, xtifr thinks that Red Hat would be guaranteed to win
if the GPL isn't mentioned in court, so why would Red Hat mention it?
As
I said in a different comment, I think Red Hat need to explain why it thought
Twin Peaks wasn't given permission to do what it did and they pretty much have
to mention the GPL in order to do that. That's why I don't agree with xtifr, but
I can see the logic in his/her argument.
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.
Don't say that
someone said something that they didn't say and don't say that someone is
thinking something or wants something with nothing to back it up. That's a
personal attack and it's very rude. Clearly xtifr never said that he/she wanted
Red Hat to trust Twin Peaks. There was no reasonable way for you to reach that
conclusion. Therefore, there is no excuse for you to have said what you did. The
simple fact that xtifr is disagreeing with you is not a good enough
reason.
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.
probably-irrelevant complication :D xtifr
was talking about what was beneficial to Red Hat. Just because it's germane
doesn't mean it's beneficial.
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:
How could
xtifr's personal information be any of your business? It seems as though you
realized that you didn't have a valid argument to use and are trying to find out
something personal in order to launch an ad hominem attack. Talk about a fishing
expedition!
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.
That
wasn't the question. Even if the GPL were relevant, it doesn't necessarily help
Red Hat.
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 don't even know how to respond to this, other than to
say that two wrongs in the same comment don't make a right.
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.
WRONG!!!
Seriously, where did
you come up with that from? Fair use is a very well established affirmative
defense. How could you not know that? Certain types of licenses are considered
to be affirmative defenses. Obviously, any affirmative defense is up to the
person doing the copying to prove (Twin Peaks), not the person complaining about
the copying (Red Hat).
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.
Now you compound it with another thing that's
obviously not true! There is no obligation to bring up arguments that won't help
your side. Even if something would help you prove your case, there is no
requirement that I know of to force you to use it. There are many ways to shoot
yourself in the foot that are perfectly permissible. Why would you think
otherwise?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.
So the Neiman Marcus statement is directly on the
point of something that is completely irrelevant! LOL! Why would you assume
that if you mentioned it you wouldn't just confuse people?
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.
No. No. No. No. No. No.
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?
Obviously, he
wasn't suggesting that. You just quoted him saying something completely
different! I probably would have accused you of trying to put words in his
mouth, but you quoted him immediately above it, so that would never work. But I
can't possibly understand why else you would have asked the question you asked.
What in the world were you trying to do?
ROFL - if they were that
ethical to take on that responsibility, they would have complied with the
license in the first place.
Yet another completely illogical
assumption!
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?
Yet another attempt to
fish for personal information and perhaps to insinuate something unsavory about
someone who merely disagrees with you. You even did it in the title of your
post! Shame!
Curious minds are interested in seeing your evidence
as to why the GPL does not apply.
Anyone who halfway decently
understood what xtifr was saying would know that he/she never said that the GPL
necessarily didn't apply.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
