Discussion:
SFLC in frivolous mode again
(too old to reply)
RJack
2009-12-14 23:53:46 UTC
Permalink
After having read this newsgroup and learning that you must register
your BusyBox copyrights prior to filing suit for infringement, the SFLC
has filed a new lawsuit with fourteen defendants this time.

Ahhhhhh......... let the fun begin anew.

Sincerely,
Rjack :)

****************** Preemption of State law ****************************
The intention of section 301 is to preempt and abolish any rights under
the common law or statutes of a State that are equivalent to copyright
and that extend to works coming within the scope of the Federal
copyright law. The declaration of this principle in section 301 is
intended to be stated in the clearest and most unequivocal language
possible, so as to foreclose any conceivable misinterpretation of its
unqualified intention that Congress shall act preemptively, and to avoid
the development of any vague borderline areas between State and Federal
protection.
JeffM
2009-12-15 03:37:36 UTC
Permalink
[...]BusyBox[...]fourteen defendants this time.
Not frivolous. If you don't want to abide by the licence,
find another software solution with a licence you do like.
...and if it was M$'s licence being violated,
Redmond would be seeking megabucks.
Alan Mackenzie
2009-12-15 08:54:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by RJack
After having read this newsgroup and learning that you must register
your BusyBox copyrights prior to filing suit for infringement, the SFLC
has filed a new lawsuit with fourteen defendants this time.
Ahhhhhh......... let the fun begin anew.
Hi, Rjack,

have you had a nice holiday? ;-)
Post by RJack
Sincerely,
Rjack :)
--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
RJack
2009-12-15 18:56:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Mackenzie
Post by RJack
After having read this newsgroup and learning that you must
register your BusyBox copyrights prior to filing suit for
infringement, the SFLC has filed a new lawsuit with fourteen
defendants this time.
Ahhhhhh......... let the fun begin anew.
Hi, Rjack,
have you had a nice holiday? ;-)
Post by RJack
Sincerely, Rjack :)
Yes it has been a good holiday so far. How about you?

Sincerely,
Rjack :)
RJack
2009-12-15 22:05:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by RJack
After having read this newsgroup and learning that you must register
your BusyBox copyrights prior to filing suit for infringement, the
SFLC has filed a new lawsuit with fourteen defendants this time.
Ahhhhhh......... let the fun begin anew.
Perhaps when the SFLC legal beagles read this newsgroup they will
realize how quickly the federal judge in this case will bounce the named
plaintiff "The Software Freedom Conservancy, Inc" from this frivolous
lawsuit.

From the complaint filed by the SFLC:

**** THE PARTIES

1. The Software Freedom Conservancy, Inc. is a 501(c)(3) tax exempt New
York not-forprofit corporation with a principal place of business at
1995 Broadway, 17th Fl., New York, New York 10023. The Conservancy acts
as the corporate home and fiscal sponsor for various free and open
source software (“FOSS”) projects. The Conservancy also serves as
copyright enforcement agent for the owners of rights in and to some of
its member projects.

2. Mr. Erik Andersen is a private individual with a residence in
Springville, Utah. Mr. Andersen develops, markets, distributes, and
licenses computer software in a professional
capacity.
****


But..... from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals:

"The Copyright Act authorizes only two types of claimants to sue for
copyright infringement: (1) owners of copyrights, and (2) persons who
have been granted exclusive licenses by owners of copyrights.[Note 3]

[Note 3] ... We do not believe that the Copyright Act permits holders of
rights under copyrights to choose third parties to bring suits on their
behalf. While F.R.Civ.P. 17(a) ordinarily permits the real party in
interest to ratify a suit brought by another party, see Urrutia Aviation
Enterprises v. B.B. Burson & Associates, Inc., 406 F.2d 769, 770 (5th
Cir.1969); Clarkson Co. Ltd. v. Rockwell Int'l Corp., 441 F.Supp. 792
(N.D.Calif.1977), the Copyright Law is quite specific in stating that
only the "owner of an exclusive right under a copyright" may bring suit.
17 U.S.C. Sec. 501(b) (Supp. IV 1980)."; Eden Toys Inc v. Florelee
Undergarment Co Inc, 697 F.2d 27 (2nd Cir 1983).


Is the SFLC getting its legal advice from Groklaw?

Sincerely,
Rjack
David Kastrup
2009-12-15 23:25:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by RJack
Post by RJack
After having read this newsgroup and learning that you must register
your BusyBox copyrights prior to filing suit for infringement, the
SFLC has filed a new lawsuit with fourteen defendants this time.
Ahhhhhh......... let the fun begin anew.
Perhaps when the SFLC legal beagles read this newsgroup they will
realize how quickly the federal judge in this case will bounce the
named plaintiff "The Software Freedom Conservancy, Inc" from this
frivolous lawsuit.
Once judge and defendant have pared down the applicable law to figure
out the question of standing conclusively. That might mean moving the
SFLC out of the process eventually. But it is sort of a race condition
since that is pretty much the same time when the defendant gets a clue
that he has nothing left to gain when not settling and coming into
compliance. Many copyright owners will gladly agree to have the case
settled against a payment to the SFLC or the FSF in the function of a
designated charity.

Most certainly the SFLC does not need to read the outpour of
self-proclaimed legal amateurs in this newsgroup in order to plan their
course of action.

They have a quite better track record at predicting legal cases than the
most vociferous know-alls here.
--
David Kastrup
RJack
2009-12-16 02:07:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Kastrup
Most certainly the SFLC does not need to read the outpour of
self-proclaimed legal amateurs in this newsgroup in order to plan their
course of action.
They have a quite better track record at predicting legal cases than the
most vociferous know-alls here.
Do you mean the eight frivolous suits the SFLC filed concerning BusyBox
prior to Erik Andersen attempting to steal the other contributing
developers' code contributions by fraudulently registering the BusyBox
program ?

The SFLC has a perfect track record. Every case they filed concerning
Monsoon and BusyBox they dismissed before a judge could ever read one of
their idiotic complaints.

Sincerely,
Rjack
David Kastrup
2009-12-16 06:32:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by RJack
Post by David Kastrup
Most certainly the SFLC does not need to read the outpour of
self-proclaimed legal amateurs in this newsgroup in order to plan their
course of action.
They have a quite better track record at predicting legal cases than the
most vociferous know-alls here.
Do you mean the eight frivolous suits the SFLC filed concerning BusyBox
prior to Erik Andersen attempting to steal the other contributing
developers' code contributions by fraudulently registering the BusyBox
program ?
The SFLC has a perfect track record. Every case they filed concerning
Monsoon and BusyBox they dismissed before a judge could ever read one
of their idiotic complaints.
With the defendant coming into compliance and the source code being made
available. Since the defendants have been big corporations with big
lawyer teams partly, that tells something. Namely that the big
corporation lawyers agree with the SFLC's legal assessment, in contrast
to you. Which you don't want to hear...
--
David Kastrup
Alexander Terekhov
2009-12-16 06:52:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Kastrup
Post by RJack
Post by David Kastrup
Most certainly the SFLC does not need to read the outpour of
self-proclaimed legal amateurs in this newsgroup in order to plan their
course of action.
They have a quite better track record at predicting legal cases than the
most vociferous know-alls here.
Do you mean the eight frivolous suits the SFLC filed concerning BusyBox
prior to Erik Andersen attempting to steal the other contributing
developers' code contributions by fraudulently registering the BusyBox
program ?
The SFLC has a perfect track record. Every case they filed concerning
Monsoon and BusyBox they dismissed before a judge could ever read one
of their idiotic complaints.
With the defendant coming into compliance and the source code being made
available. Since the defendants have been big corporations with big
Where is the "complete" source code (not to mention the GPL notice)
corresponding to http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp
binary you idiot?

regards,
alexander.

--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards
too, whereas GNU cannot.)
Hyman Rosen
2009-12-16 14:04:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alexander Terekhov
Where is the "complete" source code (not to mention the GPL notice)
corresponding to http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp
binary
Here: <http://opensource.actiontec.com/>
Alexander Terekhov
2009-12-16 14:42:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hyman Rosen
Post by Alexander Terekhov
Where is the "complete" source code (not to mention the GPL notice)
corresponding to http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp
^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by Hyman Rosen
Post by Alexander Terekhov
binary
Here: <http://opensource.actiontec.com/>
The distributor of the binary download is V-E-R-I-Z-O-N not
actiontec.com, silly.

regards,
alexander.

--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards
too, whereas GNU cannot.)
Hyman Rosen
2009-12-16 15:03:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alexander Terekhov
Post by Alexander Terekhov
Where is the "complete" source code (not to mention the GPL notice)
corresponding to http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp
Here:<http://opensource.actiontec.com/>
The distributor of the binary download is V-E-R-I-Z-O-N not
actiontec.com, silly.
The link on the Verizon website is to
<http://download.verizon.net/webdownload/firmware/upgrades/actiontec%20gateway/4.0.16.1.56.0.10.7-MI424WR.rmt>
which references an "actiontec gateway".
Alexander Terekhov
2009-12-16 15:19:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hyman Rosen
Post by Alexander Terekhov
Post by Alexander Terekhov
Where is the "complete" source code (not to mention the GPL notice)
corresponding to http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp
Here:<http://opensource.actiontec.com/>
The distributor of the binary download is V-E-R-I-Z-O-N not
actiontec.com, silly.
The link on the Verizon website is to
<http://download.verizon.net/webdownload/firmware/upgrades/actiontec%20gateway/4.0.16.1.56.0.10.7-MI424WR.rmt>
which references an "actiontec gateway".
Man oh man, "actiontec gateway" is how they call the router boxes,
idiot.

http://newscenter.verizon.com/press-releases/verizon/2008/next-generation-home-gateways.html

"Next-Generation Home Gateways Will Leverage Verizon FiOS Capacities,
Enable Dynamic Networked Services Inside the Home

...

July 23, 2008 – NEW YORK - In a move that will make the FiOS experience
even better and more exciting for residential customers, Verizon is
upgrading the capabilities of its in-home network equipment to provide
more capacity, higher speeds and many other benefits.

The company announced that new broadband routers, designed to Verizon's
specifications by Actiontec and Westell, will boost in-home speeds over
coaxial cable to up to 175 megabits per second (Mbps) from 75 Mbps and
allow operation of multiple simultaneous Wi-Fi networks. For example,
customers will be able to modify security settings on each network,
allowing a Wi-Fi network for guests and visitors, one with parental
controls for young users, one for computers holding secure documents, or
one for teleworking only. The new routers will be ready for deployment
in the third quarter. "

regards,
alexander.

--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards
too, whereas GNU cannot.)
Hyman Rosen
2009-12-16 15:31:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alexander Terekhov
Man oh man, "actiontec gateway" is how they call the router boxes
No, the link is for a FIOS router, model MI424WR.

Search the Verizon site for "Actiontec Gateway" and you
will see that those are the GT-prefixed DSL routers.
Alexander Terekhov
2009-12-16 16:01:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hyman Rosen
Post by Alexander Terekhov
Man oh man, "actiontec gateway" is how they call the router boxes
No, the link is for a FIOS router, model MI424WR.
Go to doctor Hyman.

http://newscenter.verizon.com/press-releases/verizon/2008/next-generation-home-gateways.html

"Next-Generation Home Gateways Will Leverage Verizon FiOS Capacities,
^^^^^^^^
Enable Dynamic Networked Services Inside the Home

Deployment of New Actiontec and Westell Routers Will Boost Total Home
Download Speeds to Up to 175 Megabits per Second, Enable Multiple Wi-Fi
Networks, Simplify In-Home Connectivity, and Support Future Value-Added
Applications

...

The new equipment includes the MI424-WR by Actiontec and the UltraLine
(r) Series 3 model 9100 by Westell, both custom-built for FiOS to
Verizon specifications. "

MI424WR is "gateway" ("actiontec gateway") in Verizon speak.

https://www22.verizon.com/ResidentialHelp/FiOSInternet/Networking/Troubleshooting/QuestionsOne/86182.htm
("Using the Power light to troubleshoot the Actiontec MI424WR router")

"Power light is flashing red

The router is initializing. If the Power light doesn't display steady
green after a minute, turn off the power switch on the back panel of the
Actiontec gateway for 45 seconds and then turn it back on."

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080507121103AAUzXNP
("How to setup a wireless bridge on FIOS?")

"I have the actiontec MI424WR gateway from verizon ..."

To doctor, to doctor you should go Hyman.

regards,
alexander.

--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards
too, whereas GNU cannot.)
Hyman Rosen
2009-12-16 21:09:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alexander Terekhov
Where is the "complete" source code (not to mention the GPL notice)
corresponding to http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp
binary
Here:
<http://www22.verizon.com/ResidentialHelp/FiOSInternet/Networking/Troubleshooting/QuestionsOne/124346.htm>
and here:
<http://www.verizon.net/central/vzc.portal?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=vzc_help_contentDisplay&objId=44481>

It's the same source code as before, from the Actiontec site,
but these Verizon-branded web pages pointing there.
Alexander Terekhov
2009-12-17 12:54:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hyman Rosen
Post by Alexander Terekhov
Where is the "complete" source code (not to mention the GPL notice)
corresponding to http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp
binary
<http://www22.verizon.com/ResidentialHelp/FiOSInternet/Networking/Troubleshooting/QuestionsOne/124346.htm>
<http://www.verizon.net/central/vzc.portal?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=vzc_help_contentDisplay&objId=44481>
It's the same source code as before, from the Actiontec site,
but these Verizon-branded web pages pointing there.
The GPL says

"If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering access
to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent access to copy
the source code FROM THE SAME PLACE counts as distribution of the source
code, even though third parties are not compelled to copy the source
along with the object code."

The http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp designated
place has not a slightest trace of the source code, silly.

regards,
alexander.

--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards
too, whereas GNU cannot.)
Hyman Rosen
2009-12-17 15:29:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alexander Terekhov
FROM THE SAME PLACE
What's a place on the internet?
Hyman Rosen
2009-12-17 15:36:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alexander Terekhov
The http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp designated
place has not a slightest trace of the source code
That site is for firmware upgrades; people who have the router
also received this manual
<http://support.actiontec.com/doc_files/MI424WR_Rev._E_User_Manual_20.8.0_v3_GPL.pdf>
which discusses the GPL, as well as an accompanying disk which
does the same.

C.4 GPL (General Public License)
This product includes software code developed by third parties,
including software code subject to the enclosed GNU General
Public License (GPL) or GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL).
The GPL Code and LGPL Code used in this product are distributed
WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY and are subject to the copyrights of the
authors, and to the terms of the applicable licenses included in
the download. For details, see the GPL Code and LGPL Code for
this product and the terms of the GPL and the LGPL, which are
available on the enclosed product disk and can be accessed by
inserting the disk into your CD-ROM drive and opening the
“GPL.exe” file.

It is amusing to watch you twist and spin, trying to out-SFLC the
SFLC in your desperate but futile attempts to demonstrate that
Verizon does not honor the GPL when it manifestly does. Go back to
your older posts where you insist that Verizon has never heard of
the GPL. The smell of your flop sweat is sweet.
Alexander Terekhov
2009-12-17 16:03:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hyman Rosen
Post by Alexander Terekhov
The http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp designated
place has not a slightest trace of the source code
That site is for firmware upgrades; people who have the router
also received this manual
<http://support.actiontec.com/doc_files/MI424WR_Rev._E_User_Manual_20.8.0_v3_GPL.pdf>
which discusses the GPL, as well as an accompanying disk which
Discussing the GPL and a magic disk (does it really contain source code
for all possible future updates you idiot) doesn't make Verizon's
distribution of GPL'd binary stuff at
http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp compliant with the
GPL's requirement regarding providing access to the corresponding source
code.

regards,
alexander.

--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards
too, whereas GNU cannot.)
Alan Mackenzie
2009-12-16 10:04:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Kastrup
Most certainly the SFLC does not need to read the outpour of
self-proclaimed legal amateurs in this newsgroup in order to plan their
course of action.
What makes you think Rjack is a legal amateur? I don't think he's ever
made the matter of his profession clear in this mailing list.
--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
David Kastrup
2009-12-16 10:13:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Mackenzie
Post by David Kastrup
Most certainly the SFLC does not need to read the outpour of
self-proclaimed legal amateurs in this newsgroup in order to plan their
course of action.
What makes you think Rjack is a legal amateur?
Wishful thinking. I'd not wish anybody to suck as badly in the area of
his profession.
Post by Alan Mackenzie
I don't think he's ever made the matter of his profession clear in
this mailing list.
So he is speaking and acting as an amateur here. Whether or not he has
a second life does not really play into this.
--
David Kastrup
RJack
2009-12-16 20:22:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Kastrup
Post by Alan Mackenzie
Post by David Kastrup
Most certainly the SFLC does not need to read the outpour of
self-proclaimed legal amateurs in this newsgroup in order to plan
their course of action.
What makes you think Rjack is a legal amateur?
Wishful thinking. I'd not wish anybody to suck as badly in the area
of his profession.
Post by Alan Mackenzie
I don't think he's ever made the matter of his profession clear in
this mailing list.
So he is speaking and acting as an amateur here. Whether or not he
has a second life does not really play into this.
As fucking old as I am, I'm soon gonna' need a second life!

Sincerely,
RJack
RJack
2009-12-16 20:20:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Mackenzie
Post by David Kastrup
Most certainly the SFLC does not need to read the outpour of
self-proclaimed legal amateurs in this newsgroup in order to plan their
course of action.
What makes you think Rjack is a legal amateur? I don't think he's ever
made the matter of his profession clear in this mailing list.
RETIRED.

Sincerely,
RJack
Alan Mackenzie
2009-12-16 21:00:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by RJack
Post by Alan Mackenzie
Post by David Kastrup
Most certainly the SFLC does not need to read the outpour of
self-proclaimed legal amateurs in this newsgroup in order to plan their
course of action.
What makes you think Rjack is a legal amateur? I don't think he's ever
made the matter of his profession clear in this mailing list.
RETIRED.
Yes, you've said that before. But could it be that before you retired,
you were a practioner in the legal line of work?
Post by RJack
Sincerely,
RJack
--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
Chris Ahlstrom
2009-12-16 22:43:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Mackenzie
Post by RJack
RETIRED.
Yes, you've said that before. But could it be that before you retired,
you were a practioner in the legal line of work?
What, did he retire when he was 15, this dude who sometimes answers a post
with ASCII portraying a double bird-flip?
--
Your analyst has you mixed up with another patient. Don't believe a
thing he tells you.
RJack
2009-12-16 22:46:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Ahlstrom
Post by Alan Mackenzie
Post by RJack
RETIRED.
Yes, you've said that before. But could it be that before you
retired, you were a practioner in the legal line of work?
What, did he retire when he was 15, this dude who sometimes answers a
post with ASCII portraying a double bird-flip?
Who? Me?

Sincerely,
RJack


Have a nice day Chris!
_ _
|R| |R|
|J| /^^^\ |J|
_|a|_ (| "o" |) _|a|_
_| |c| | _ (_---_) _ | |c| |_
| | |k| ||-| _| |_ |-|| |k| | |
| | / \ | |
\ / / /(. .)\ \ \ /
\ / / / | . | \ \ \ /
\ \/ / ||Y|| \ \/ /
\__/ || || \__/
() ()
|| ||
ooO Ooo
Alexander Terekhov
2009-12-16 08:48:18 UTC
Permalink
RJack wrote:
[...]
Post by RJack
"The Copyright Act authorizes only two types of claimants to sue for
copyright infringement: (1) owners of copyrights, and (2) persons who
have been granted exclusive licenses by owners of copyrights.[Note 3]
[Note 3] ... We do not believe that the Copyright Act permits holders of
rights under copyrights to choose third parties to bring suits on their
behalf. While F.R.Civ.P. 17(a) ordinarily permits the real party in
interest to ratify a suit brought by another party, see Urrutia Aviation
Enterprises v. B.B. Burson & Associates, Inc., 406 F.2d 769, 770 (5th
Cir.1969); Clarkson Co. Ltd. v. Rockwell Int'l Corp., 441 F.Supp. 792
(N.D.Calif.1977), the Copyright Law is quite specific in stating that
only the "owner of an exclusive right under a copyright" may bring suit.
17 U.S.C. Sec. 501(b) (Supp. IV 1980)."; Eden Toys Inc v. Florelee
Undergarment Co Inc, 697 F.2d 27 (2nd Cir 1983).
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2009/busybox-complaint-2009-12-14.pdf

"Plaintiff Software Freedom Conservancy is the corporate home for the
BusyBox project and the designated copyright enforcement agent for Mr.
Andersen with respect to BusyBox."

LOL.

This farce is a pure PR stunt meant to help SFLC/SFC with fund raising
to pay the inflated salaries to Eben and his underlings.

http://www.softwarefreedom.org/about/team/

Hey GNUtians, donate to your brainwashes:

http://www.softwarefreedom.org/donate/

regards,
alexander.

--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards
too, whereas GNU cannot.)
Alexander Terekhov
2010-01-08 10:39:17 UTC
Permalink
The NYSD court seems to get fed up with SFLC practice of filing delay
stipulations.

"No further extensions for this, or any defendant in this action, will
be granted. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 1/6/10) (cd)
(Entered: 01/07/2010)"

http://www.terekhov.de/09-cv-10155/19.pdf

Here's the entire docket:

U.S. District Court
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
(Foley Square)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:09-cv-10155-SAS

Software Freedom Conservancy, Inc. v. Best Buy Co., Inc. et al
Assigned to: Judge Shira A. Scheindlin
Cause: 17:501 Copyright Infringement
Date Filed: 12/14/2009
Jury Demand: None
Nature of Suit: 820 Copyright
Jurisdiction: Federal Question
Plaintiff
Software Freedom Conservancy, Inc. represented by Aaron Kyle Williamson
Software Freedom Law Center, Inc
1995 Broadway, 17th Fl.
New York , NY 10023
212 580 0800
Fax: (212)-580-0898
Email: ***@softwarefreedom.org
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Ben Ravicher
Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
1995 Broadway
17th Floor
New York , NY 10023
212 580 0800
Fax: 212 580 0898
Email: ***@yu.edu
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael Andrew Spiegel
Software Freedom Law Center [
1995 Broadway
New York , NY 10023
212 580 0800
Fax: (212)-580-0898
Email: ***@softwarefreedom.org
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mishi Choudhary
Software Freedom Law Center, Inc
1995 Broadway, 17th Fl.
New York , NY 10023
212 580 0800
Fax: (212)-580-0898
Email: ***@softwarefreedom.org
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED


V.

Defendant
Best Buy Co., Inc.

Defendant
Samsung Electronics America, Inc.

Defendant
Westinghouse Digital Electronics, LLC

Defendant
JVC Americas Corporation

Defendant
Western Digital Technologies, Inc.

Defendant
Robert Bosch LLC

Defendant
Phoebe Micro, Inc.

Defendant
Humax USA Inc.

Defendant
Comtred Corporation represented by Emily Bab Kirsch
Reed Smith (NYC)
599 Lexington Avenue
New York , NY 10022
(212)-521-5400
Fax: (212)-521-5450
Email: ***@reedsmith.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Dobbs-Stanford Corporation represented by Justin F. Heinrich
Proskauer Rose LLP (New York)
1585 Broadway
New York , NY 10036
(212)-969-3277
Fax: (212)-969-2900
Email: ***@proskauer.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael T. Mervis
Proskauer Rose LLP (New York)
1585 Broadway
New York , NY 10036
(212) 969-3565
Fax: (212)-969-2900
Email: ***@proskauer.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Versa Technology Inc.

Defendant
ZYXEL Communications Inc. represented by Emily Bab Kirsch
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Astak Inc.

Defendant
GCI Technologies Corporation


Date Filed # Docket Text
12/14/2009 1 COMPLAINT against Western Digital Technologies, Inc.,
Robert Bosch LLC, Phoebe Micro, Inc., Humax USA Inc., Comtred
Corporation, Dobbs-Stanford Corporation, Versa Technology Inc., ZYXEL
Communications Inc., Astak Inc., GCI Technologies Corporation, Best Buy
Co., Inc., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Westinghouse Digital
Electronics, LLC, JVC Americas Corporation. (Filing Fee $ 350.00,
Receipt Number 708298)Document filed by Software Freedom Conservancy,
Inc..(rdz) (ama). (Entered: 12/14/2009)
12/14/2009 SUMMONS ISSUED as to Western Digital Technologies, Inc.,
Robert Bosch LLC, Phoebe Micro, Inc., Humax USA Inc., Comtred
Corporation, Dobbs-Stanford Corporation, Versa Technology Inc., ZYXEL
Communications Inc., Astak Inc., GCI Technologies Corporation, Best Buy
Co., Inc., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Westinghouse Digital
Electronics, LLC, JVC Americas Corporation. (rdz) (Entered: 12/14/2009)
12/14/2009 Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein is so designated.
(rdz) (Entered: 12/14/2009)
12/14/2009 Case Designated ECF. (rdz) (Entered: 12/14/2009)
12/14/2009 2 RULE 7.1 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT. No Corporate
Parent. Document filed by Software Freedom Conservancy, Inc..(rdz)
(ama). (Entered: 12/14/2009)
12/23/2009 3 STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME, JVC Americas Corporation
answer to complaint due 3/8/2010. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin
on 12/23/09) (cd) (Entered: 12/28/2009)
01/05/2010 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. Astak Inc. served on 12/17/2009,
answer due 1/7/2010. Service was accepted by Elliott Ning. Document
filed by Software Freedom Conservancy, Inc.. (Williamson, Aaron)
(Entered: 01/05/2010)
01/05/2010 5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. Best Buy Co., Inc. served on
12/16/2009, answer due 1/6/2010. Service was accepted by Tom Harris,
Counsel. Document filed by Software Freedom Conservancy, Inc.. (Spiegel,
Michael) (Entered: 01/05/2010)
01/05/2010 6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. Dobbs-Stanford Corporation served
on 12/17/2009, answer due 1/7/2010. Service was accepted by J. Fred
Dobbs, CEO. Document filed by Software Freedom Conservancy, Inc..
(Spiegel, Michael) (Entered: 01/05/2010)
01/05/2010 7 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. GCI Technologies Corporation
served on 12/17/2009, answer due 1/7/2010. Service was accepted by Maria
Comerci, Office Manager. Document filed by Software Freedom Conservancy,
Inc.. (Spiegel, Michael) (Entered: 01/05/2010)
01/05/2010 8 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. Humax USA Inc. served on
12/17/2009, answer due 1/7/2010. Service was accepted by Sally Weo,
Managing Agent. Document filed by Humax USA Inc.. (Spiegel, Michael)
(Entered: 01/05/2010)
01/05/2010 9 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. JVC Americas Corporation served on
12/17/2009, answer due 3/8/2010. Service was accepted by Teresa
Charrkas, Legal Assistant. Document filed by Software Freedom
Conservancy, Inc.. (Spiegel, Michael) (Entered: 01/05/2010)
01/05/2010 10 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. Phoebe Micro, Inc. served on
12/17/2009, answer due 1/7/2010. Service was accepted by Flora Zheng,
Operations Manager. Document filed by Software Freedom Conservancy,
Inc.. (Spiegel, Michael) (Entered: 01/05/2010)
01/05/2010 11 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. Robert Bosch LLC served on
12/17/2009, answer due 1/7/2010. Service was accepted by Cecille Martin,
Assistant General Counsel. Document filed by Software Freedom
Conservancy, Inc.. (Spiegel, Michael) (Entered: 01/05/2010)
01/05/2010 12 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
served on 12/17/2009, answer due 1/7/2010. Service was accepted by Juli
Askew, Paralegal. Document filed by Software Freedom Conservancy, Inc..
(Spiegel, Michael) (Entered: 01/05/2010)
01/05/2010 13 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. Versa Technology Inc. served on
12/17/2009, answer due 1/7/2010. Service was accepted by Erica Yang,
Office Manager. Document filed by Software Freedom Conservancy, Inc..
(Spiegel, Michael) (Entered: 01/05/2010)
01/05/2010 14 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. ZYXEL Communications Inc. served
on 12/23/2009, answer due 1/13/2010. Service was accepted by Hortensia
Tafoalla, Managing Agent. Document filed by Software Freedom
Conservancy, Inc.. (Spiegel, Michael) (Entered: 01/05/2010)
01/06/2010 15 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Emily Bab Kirsch on behalf of
Comtred Corporation (Kirsch, Emily) (Entered: 01/06/2010)
01/07/2010 16 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Emily Bab Kirsch on behalf of
ZYXEL Communications Inc. (Kirsch, Emily) (Entered: 01/07/2010)
01/07/2010 17 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Michael T. Mervis on behalf of
Dobbs-Stanford Corporation (Mervis, Michael) (Entered: 01/07/2010)
01/07/2010 18 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Justin F. Heinrich on behalf of
Dobbs-Stanford Corporation (Heinrich, Justin) (Entered: 01/07/2010)
01/07/2010 19 STIPULATION AND ORDER EXTENDING TIME OF DEFENDANT GCI
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION TO RESPOND TO THE COMPLAINT, GCI Technologies
Corporation answer due 3/8/2010. No further extensions for this, or any
defendant in this action, will be granted. (Signed by Judge Shira A.
Scheindlin on 1/6/10) (cd) (Entered: 01/07/2010)

regards,
alexander.

--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards
too, whereas GNU cannot.)
Hyman Rosen
2010-01-08 15:27:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alexander Terekhov
The NYSD court seems to get fed up with SFLC practice
of filing delay stipulations.
"No further extensions for this, or any defendant in this action, will
be granted. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 1/6/10) (cd)
(Entered: 01/07/2010)"
http://www.terekhov.de/09-cv-10155/19.pdf
I'm glad to see that your habit of posting documents which
directly contradict your thesis remains unchanged.

plaintiffs and GCI ... hereby stipulate and agree that
the time within which GCI may respond to the Complaint
filed by the plaintiffs is hereby extended through and
including March 8, 2010. ...
(handwritten) No further extensions...

And the title of this document is
STIPULATION AND ORDER
EXTENDING TIME OF DEFENDANT
GCI TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION
TO RESPOND TO THE COMPLAINT

It is only in the bizarrely insane twists of your mind
that a one-time extension granted to the defendants could
be construed as criticism of the plaintiffs.
David Kastrup
2010-01-08 16:15:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alexander Terekhov
The NYSD court seems to get fed up with SFLC practice of filing delay
stipulations.
"No further extensions for this, or any defendant in this action, will
be granted. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 1/6/10) (cd)
(Entered: 01/07/2010)"
Uh, "this, or any [other] defendant". The SFLC is the plaintiff. The
SFLC may have _agreed_ to the delay stipulation, but it certainly was
not the one to _file_ it.
--
David Kastrup
RJack
2010-01-09 13:44:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alexander Terekhov
The NYSD court seems to get fed up with SFLC practice of filing
delay stipulations.
"No further extensions for this, or any defendant in this action,
will be granted. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 1/6/10)
(cd) (Entered: 01/07/2010)"
Uh, "this, or any [other] defendant". The SFLC is the plaintiff. The
SFLC may have _agreed_ to the delay stipulation, but it certainly
was not the one to _file_ it.
Hey DAK... since the only possibility for a stipulation to extend the
time to respond to the complaint applies to the defendants (ever hear of
a plaintiff answering his own complaint?) it is or should be obvious
that the stipulation (by definition) is a MUTUAL agreement between
plaintiff and defendant.

The SFLC will agree to *anything* to prevent any further motions to
dismiss by the defendants to be filed in this matter. THE SFLC WILL
NEVER, NEVER ALLOW A FEDERAL JUDGE TO INTERPRET THE GPL CONTRACT ON ITS
MERITS. This case is *guaranteed* to end in a voluntary dismissal.

1) Here's what would happen to the bogus plaintiff "The Software Freedom
Conservancy, Inc.". From the Second Circuit Court of Appeals:

"The Copyright Act authorizes only two types of claimants to sue for
copyright infringement: (1) owners of copyrights, and (2) persons who
have been granted exclusive licenses by owners of copyrights.[Note 3]

[Note 3] ... We do not believe that the Copyright Act permits holders of
rights under copyrights to choose third parties to bring suits on their
behalf. While F.R.Civ.P. 17(a) ordinarily permits the real party in
interest to ratify a suit brought by another party, see Urrutia Aviation
Enterprises v. B.B. Burson & Associates, Inc., 406 F.2d 769, 770 (5th
Cir.1969); Clarkson Co. Ltd. v. Rockwell Int'l Corp., 441 F.Supp. 792
(N.D.Calif.1977), the Copyright Law is quite specific in stating that
only the "owner of an exclusive right under a copyright" may bring suit.
17 U.S.C. Sec. 501(b) (Supp. IV 1980)."; Eden Toys Inc v. Florelee
Undergarment Co Inc, 697 F.2d 27 (2nd Cir 1983).

Goodbye bogus "The Software Freedom Conservancy, Inc."!!!

2) Any motion to dismiss filed by the plaintiff's challenging Erik
Anderson's ownership of the copyrights to “BusyBox,v.0.60.3.” would
instantly reveal the fraudulent copyright registration involved.

See: http://www.mail-archive.com/gnu-misc-***@gnu.org/msg12235.html

Motions to "Extend Time to Answer Complaint" are very routinely and
liberally granted in the SDNY by a *magistrate* of the court. There is
no question that Judge Shira A. Scheindlin assigned to this case smells
a big rat.

I hope and pray this case proceeds on the merits -- but it won't. It is
obvious the SFLC staff aren't competent enough to file a complaint that
would survive a motion to dismiss by the defendants.

THE SFLC WILL NEVER, NEVER ALLOW A FEDERAL JUDGE TO INTERPRET THE GPL
CONTRACT ON ITS MERITS.

A voluntary motion to dismiss with a subsequent press release parroted
by Pee Jay and the SFLC astroturf campaign declaring "victory" is
inevitable.

Sincerely,
Rjack
RJack
2010-01-09 14:34:40 UTC
Permalink
I have a Google alert set to "GPL". It is very obvious from my mailbox
that the SFLC is succeeding in educating the business world to avoid
GPL'd "Free Software". The legal harassment of businesses with
frivolous lawsuits by the SFLC is convincing entrepreneurs to utilize
open source code licensed under truly free Apache, MIT, BSD and
similar non-restrictive licenses. Erik Raymond once predicted the GPL
would collapse under its own philosophical baggage. The SFLC is
accelerating that collapse.

The recent lawsuit by the SFLC is unquestionably an attempt to
raise the profile of the SFLC's fundraising in this time of severe
recession. The SFLC's incompetent staff suck handsome salaries out of
the public donations to "defense of Free Software" by the SFLC.
With donations on the wane, the choir must be motivated to give more --
else the SFLC staff will be forced into gainful employment somewhere else.

Have *you* given generously to the SFLC lately Hyman and DAK? It's your
solemn duty to do so. Eben is calling. Alms for the poor!

Sincerely,
Rjack
Alan Mackenzie
2010-01-10 14:22:26 UTC
Permalink
Hello Rjack, back again, are we?
Post by RJack
I have a Google alert set to "GPL". It is very obvious from my mailbox
that the SFLC is succeeding in educating the business world to avoid
GPL'd "Free Software".
That's at best a mischaracterisation. The "business world" (whatever
that might mean) is as welcome as anybody to use free software (in the
sense of running it), and a vast number of businesses do. As you are
well aware, the GPL is an extraordinarily generous copyright license.

Just there are some requirements, not onerous, which must be fulfilled if
the "business world" (whatever that might mean) or anybody else
distributes free software.
Post by RJack
The legal harassment of businesses with frivolous lawsuits by the SFLC
....
So, a legal action for violation of copyright, done in good faith, is
"harassment" and a "frivolous lawsuit" as far as Rjack is concerned?
Wierd.
Post by RJack
.... is convincing entrepreneurs to utilize open source code licensed
under truly free Apache, MIT, BSD and similar non-restrictive licenses.
Maybe, maybe not. The thing is, though, there isn't all that much
software available under these licenses, certainly compared with that
available under the GPL. Think about why this might be the case.

Even the various BSD Unixen use GPL code. For that matter, GNU also uses
BSD licensed code.
Post by RJack
Erik Raymond once predicted the GPL would collapse under its own
philosophical baggage. The SFLC is accelerating that collapse.
Is that right? Seems to be holding up just fine as far as I can see.
Post by RJack
The recent lawsuit by the SFLC is unquestionably an attempt to
raise the profile of the SFLC's fundraising in this time of severe
recession.
That's a bit far fetched, even for you.
Post by RJack
The SFLC's incompetent staff suck handsome salaries out of the public
donations to "defense of Free Software" by the SFLC.
That remark comes into the category of libel. Good job none of them take
you at all seriously.
Post by RJack
Sincerely,
Rjack
--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
RJack
2010-01-10 19:41:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Mackenzie
Post by RJack
The legal harassment of businesses with frivolous lawsuits by the
SFLC ....
So, a legal action for violation of copyright, done in good faith, is
"harassment" and a "frivolous lawsuit" as far as Rjack is concerned?
Wierd.
Since when is filing eight consecutive frivolous copyright lawsuits
misrepresenting ownership of works that you didn't author "an act in
good faith"? It's criminal Allen -- not "good faith":

"37 CFR §202.3 Registration of copyright.
(1) This section prescribes conditions for the registration of
copyright, and the application to be made for registration under
sections 408 and 409 of title 17 of the United States Code, as amended
by Pub. L. 94–553...
(3) For the purposes of this section, a copyright claimant is either:
(i) The author of a work;
(ii) A person or organization that has obtained ownership of all rights
under the copyright initially belonging to the author.[1]
[1] This category includes a person or organization that has obtained,
from the author or from an entity that has obtained ownership of all
rights under the copyright initially belonging to the author, the
contractual right to claim legal title to the copyright in an
application for copyright registration."

"17 USC Sec. 506. Criminal offenses
(e) False Representation. —
Any person who knowingly makes a false representation
of a material fact in the application for copyright
registration provided for by section 409, or in any
written statement filed in connection with the application,
shall be fined not more than $2,500."

You, me and most of the World know that Erik Anderson isn't the author
of “BusyBox,v.0.60.3.” -- nor did he obtain ownership prior to filing
the aforementioned frivolous lawsuits, just ask Bruce Perrin and
about thirty other code contributors to BusyBox. If Erik Andesrson wants
to sue someone for copyright infringement, let him first honestly
register whatever code modules in BusyBox for which he is the ORIGINAL
author and owner.
Post by Alan Mackenzie
Post by RJack
The SFLC's incompetent staff suck handsome salaries out of the
public donations to "defense of Free Software" by the SFLC.
That remark comes into the category of libel. Good job none of them
take you at all seriously.
1) Truth is an absolute defense to libel in this country Allen. Filing
seven consecutive copyright infringement lawsuits without standing,
followed by seven voluntary dismissals is I-N-C-O-M-P-E-T-E-N-T.

2) The SFLC is a United States Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. §
501(c)(3) advocacy organization -- so sue me.

3) I hope someone takes me seriously before somebody ends up before a
disciplinary board or worse yet, in the slammer. Lying to the Federal
Government is taken seriously in this country Allen.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The contents of the AUTHORS file in tarball busybox-0.60.3.tar.bz2
follows:

List of the authors of code contained in BusyBox.

If you have code in BusyBox, you should be listed here. If you should
be listed, or the description of what you have done needs more detail,
or is incorect, _please_ let me know.

-Erik

-----------

Erik Andersen <***@codepoet.org>, <***@debian.org>
Tons of new stuff, major rewrite of most of the
core apps, tons of new apps as noted in header files.

Edward Betts <***@debian.org>
expr, hostid, logname, tty, wc, whoami, yes

John Beppu <***@codepoet.org>
du, head, nslookup, sort, tee, uniq

Brian Candler <***@pobox.com>
tiny-ls(ls)

Randolph Chung <***@debian.org>
fbset, ping, hostname, and mkfifo

Dave Cinege <***@psychosis.com>
more(v2), makedevs, dutmp, modularization, auto links file,
various fixes, Linux Router Project maintenance

Magnus Damm <***@opensource.se>
tftp client
insmod powerpc support

Larry Doolittle <***@recycle.lbl.gov>
pristine source directory compilation, lots of patches and fixes.

Gennady Feldman <***@cachier.com>
Sysklogd (single threaded syslogd, IPC Circular buffer support,
logread), various fixes.

Karl M. Hegbloom <***@debian.org>
cp_mv.c, the test suite, various fixes to utility.c, &c.

Daniel Jacobowitz <***@debian.org>
mktemp.c

Matt Kraai <***@alumni.carnegiemellon.edu>
documentation, bugfixes, test suite

John Lombardo <***@deltanet.com>
dirname, tr

Glenn McGrath <***@optushome.com.au>
ar, dpkg, dpkg-deb

Vladimir Oleynik <***@simtreas.ru>
cmdedit; ports: ash, stty, traceroute; locale, various fixes
and irreconcilable critic of everything not perfect.

Bruce Perens <***@pixar.com>
Original author of BusyBox. His code is still in many apps.

Tim Riker <***@Rikers.org>
bug fixes, member of fan club

Kent Robotti <***@metconnect.com>
reset, tons and tons of bug reports and patchs.

Chip Rosenthal <***@unicom.com>, <***@covad.com>
wget - Contributed by permission of Covad Communications

Pavel Roskin <***@gnu.org>
Lots of bugs fixes and patches.

Gyepi Sam <***@praxis-sw.com>
Remote logging feature for syslogd

Linus Torvalds <***@transmeta.com>
mkswap, fsck.minix, mkfs.minix

Mark Whitley <***@codepoet.org>
grep, sed, cut, xargs, style-guide, new-applet-HOWTO, bug fixes, etc.

Charles P. Wright <***@villagenet.com>
gzip, mini-netcat(nc)

Enrique Zanardi <***@ull.es>
tarcat (since removed), loadkmap, various fixes, Debian maintenance

Emanuele Aina <***@tiscali.it>
run-parts

Sincerely,
RJack




Sincerely,
Rjack :)
David Kastrup
2010-01-10 20:01:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by RJack
1) Truth is an absolute defense to libel in this country Allen. Filing
seven consecutive copyright infringement lawsuits without standing,
followed by seven voluntary dismissals is I-N-C-O-M-P-E-T-E-N-T.
Uh, you dismiss when the defendant settles and comes into compliance
_except_ possibly when you are suing for damages. In case of GPL,
monetary damages are rather hard to quantify. So if compliance is what
you are after, what point is there in continuing once the sued party
gives in?
Post by RJack
3) I hope someone takes me seriously before somebody ends up before a
disciplinary board or worse yet, in the slammer. Lying to the Federal
Government is taken seriously in this country Allen.
Which makes it obvious that this is just your personal fantasy, or the
defendants would certainly notify the judge instead of coming into
compliance and settling.

Lying on Usenet is not taken seriously. Which is why this group rather
than the courts are where _you_ elect to spew.

A sad spectacle what some people feel they have to resort to in order to
feel important.

Trying to make the world a worse place in order to have any impact at
all.
--
David Kastrup
chrisv
2010-01-11 15:04:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Kastrup
Post by RJack
1) Truth is an absolute defense to libel in this country Allen. Filing
seven consecutive copyright infringement lawsuits without standing,
followed by seven voluntary dismissals is I-N-C-O-M-P-E-T-E-N-T.
Uh, you dismiss when the defendant settles and comes into compliance
_except_ possibly when you are suing for damages
How many times so you need to explain this to that trolling piece of
shit "RJack"?
David Kastrup
2010-01-11 15:22:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by chrisv
Post by David Kastrup
Post by RJack
1) Truth is an absolute defense to libel in this country Allen. Filing
seven consecutive copyright infringement lawsuits without standing,
followed by seven voluntary dismissals is I-N-C-O-M-P-E-T-E-N-T.
Uh, you dismiss when the defendant settles and comes into compliance
_except_ possibly when you are suing for damages
How many times so you need to explain this to that trolling piece of
shit "RJack"?
How often do you need to show a slide until it sticks to the canvas?
--
David Kastrup
Alan Mackenzie
2010-01-11 08:07:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by RJack
Post by Alan Mackenzie
Post by RJack
The SFLC's incompetent staff suck handsome salaries out of the
public donations to "defense of Free Software" by the SFLC.
That remark comes into the category of libel. Good job none of them
take you at all seriously.
1) Truth is an absolute defense to libel in this country Allen. Filing
seven consecutive copyright infringement lawsuits without standing,
followed by seven voluntary dismissals is I-N-C-O-M-P-E-T-E-N-T.
You're confusing your interpretation, your desire for how you would like
things to be, with how things are. A team of lawyers have settled a
series of cases (I'll take your word for it that there are seven; I've
got better things to do than to keep counting them), so that makes them
incompetent in the Rjack world.
Post by RJack
2) The SFLC is a United States Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. ?
501(c)(3) advocacy organization -- so sue me.
Oh, nobody's going to bother suing you. Even if these lawyers chanced
upon gnu-misc-***@gnu.org, they'd regard it is beneath them to mix it
in with the likes of you. That doesn't change the fact that your
statement was libellous.
Post by RJack
3) I hope someone takes me seriously before somebody ends up before a
disciplinary board or worse yet, in the slammer. Lying to the Federal
Government is taken seriously in this country Allen.
You're foaming at the mouth so much that you can't even spell my name
properly? Let's see about this alleged "lying". It seems to me that
lying and swindling are a normal and accepted part of USA business, and
are encouraged and protected by USA law.
Post by RJack
Sincerely,
Rjack :)
--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
RJack
2010-01-11 16:27:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Mackenzie
You're confusing your interpretation, your desire for how you would
like things to be, with how things are. A team of lawyers have
settled a series of cases (I'll take your word for it that there are
seven;
Settled seven "cases" for which the federal court had no jurisdiction to
hear? Those are imaginary GNU settlements in your delusional mind.
Post by Alan Mackenzie
You're foaming at the mouth so much that you can't even spell my name
properly? Let's see about this alleged "lying". It seems to me
that lying and swindling are a normal and accepted part of USA
business, and are encouraged and protected by USA law.
It is but we in the USA are honest enough to recognize that fact. We
just don't live in denial like you do Alan.

Sincerely,
RJack
Hyman Rosen
2010-01-11 15:16:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by RJack
the SFLC is succeeding in educating the business world
to avoid GPL'd "Free Software".
Then all those companies demonstrating and selling electronic
devices that use the Android operating system, running on a
Linux kernel, are either not part of the business world or are
uneducated. Good to know. Or maybe you're just a fool.
RJack
2010-01-11 16:34:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by RJack
the SFLC is succeeding in educating the business world to avoid
GPL'd "Free Software".
Then all those companies demonstrating and selling electronic devices
that use the Android operating system, running on a Linux kernel, are
either not part of the business world or are uneducated. Good to
know. Or maybe you're just a fool.
UHHHH..... Doesn't look like Google embraced the GPL to me:

------------------------------------------------------------------
Terms and Conditions

This is the Android Software Development Kit License Agreement.
1. Introduction

1.1 The Android Software Development Kit (referred to in this License
Agreement as the "SDK" and specifically including the Android system
files, packaged APIs, and Google APIs add-ons) is licensed to you
subject to the terms of this License Agreement. This License Agreement
forms a legally binding contract between you and Google in relation to
your use of the SDK.

1.2 "Google" means Google Inc., a Delaware corporation with principal
place of business at 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043,
United States.
2. Accepting this License Agreement

2.1 In order to use the SDK, you must first agree to this License
Agreement. You may not use the SDK if you do not accept this License
Agreement.

2.2 You can accept this License Agreement by:

(A) clicking to accept or agree to this License Agreement, where this
option is made available to you; or

(B) by actually using the SDK. In this case, you agree that use of the
SDK constitutes acceptance of the Licensing Agreement from that point
onwards.

2.3 You may not use the SDK and may not accept the Licensing Agreement
if you are a person barred from receiving the SDK under the laws of the
United States or other countries including the country in which you are
resident or from which you use the SDK.

2.4 If you are agreeing to be bound by this License Agreement on behalf
of your employer or other entity, you represent and warrant that you
have full legal authority to bind your employer or such entity to this
License Agreement. If you do not have the requisite authority, you may
not accept the Licensing Agreement or use the SDK on behalf of your
employer or other entity.
3. SDK License from Google

3.1 Subject to the terms of this License Agreement, Google grants you a
limited, worldwide, royalty-free, non- assignable and non-exclusive
license to use the SDK solely to develop applications to run on the
Android platform.

3.2 You agree that Google or third parties own all legal right, title
and interest in and to the SDK, including any Intellectual Property
Rights that subsist in the SDK. "Intellectual Property Rights" means any
and all rights under patent law, copyright law, trade secret law,
trademark law, and any and all other proprietary rights. Google reserves
all rights not expressly granted to you.

3.3 Except to the extent required by applicable third party licenses,
you may not copy (except for backup purposes), modify, adapt,
redistribute, decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble, or create
derivative works of the SDK or any part of the SDK. Except to the extent
required by applicable third party licenses, you may not load any part
of the SDK onto a mobile handset or any other hardware device except a
personal computer, combine any part of the SDK with other software, or
distribute any software or device incorporating a part of the SDK.

3.4 Use, reproduction and distribution of components of the SDK licensed
under an open source software license are governed solely by the terms
of that open source software license and not this License Agreement.

3.5 You agree that the form and nature of the SDK that Google provides
may change without prior notice to you and that future versions of the
SDK may be incompatible with applications developed on previous versions
of the SDK. You agree that Google may stop (permanently or temporarily)
providing the SDK (or any features within the SDK) to you or to users
generally at Google's sole discretion, without prior notice to you.

3.6 Nothing in this License Agreement gives you a right to use any of
Google's trade names, trademarks, service marks, logos, domain names, or
other distinctive brand features.

3.7 You agree that you will not remove, obscure, or alter any
proprietary rights notices (including copyright and trademark notices)
that may be affixed to or contained within the SDK.
4. Use of the SDK by You

4.1 Google agrees that it obtains no right, title or interest from you
(or your licensors) under this License Agreement in or to any software
applications that you develop using the SDK, including any intellectual
property rights that subsist in those applications.

4.2 You agree to use the SDK and write applications only for purposes
that are permitted by (a) this License Agreement and (b) any applicable
law, regulation or generally accepted practices or guidelines in the
relevant jurisdictions (including any laws regarding the export of data
or software to and from the United States or other relevant countries).

4.3 You agree that if you use the SDK to develop applications for
general public users, you will protect the privacy and legal rights of
those users. If the users provide you with user names, passwords, or
other login information or personal information, your must make the
users aware that the information will be available to your application,
and you must provide legally adequate privacy notice and protection for
those users. If your application stores personal or sensitive
information provided by users, it must do so securely. If the user
provides your application with Google Account information, your
application may only use that information to access the user's Google
Account when, and for the limited purposes for which, the user has given
you permission to do so.

4.4 You agree that you will not engage in any activity with the SDK,
including the development or distribution of an application, that
interferes with, disrupts, damages, or accesses in an unauthorized
manner the servers, networks, or other properties or services of any
third party including, but not limited to, Google or any mobile
communications carrier.

4.5 You agree that you are solely responsible for (and that Google has
no responsibility to you or to any third party for) any data, content,
or resources that you create, transmit or display through the Android
platform and/or applications for the Android platform, and for the
consequences of your actions (including any loss or damage which Google
may suffer) by doing so.

4.6 You agree that you are solely responsible for (and that Google has
no responsibility to you or to any third party for) any breach of your
obligations under this License Agreement, any applicable third party
contract or Terms of Service, or any applicable law or regulation, and
for the consequences (including any loss or damage which Google or any
third party may suffer) of any such breach.
5. Your Developer Credentials

5.1 You agree that you are responsible for maintaining the
confidentiality of any developer credentials that may be issued to you
by Google or which you may choose yourself and that you will be solely
responsible for all applications that are developed under your developer
credentials.
6. Privacy and Information

6.1 In order to continually innovate and improve the SDK, Google may
collect certain usage statistics from the software including but not
limited to a unique identifier, associated IP address, version number of
the software, and information on which tools and/or services in the SDK
are being used and how they are being used. Before any of this
information is collected, the SDK will notify you and seek your consent.
If you withhold consent, the information will not be collected.

6.2 The data collected is examined in the aggregate to improve the SDK
and is maintained in accordance with Google's Privacy Policy.
7. Third Party Applications for the Android Platform

7.1 If you use the SDK to run applications developed by a third party or
that access data, content or resources provided by a third party, you
agree that Google is not responsible for those applications, data,
content, or resources. You understand that all data, content or
resources which you may access through such third party applications are
the sole responsibility of the person from which they originated and
that Google is not liable for any loss or damage that you may experience
as a result of the use or access of any of those third party
applications, data, content, or resources.

7.2 You should be aware the data, content, and resources presented to
you through such a third party application may be protected by
intellectual property rights which are owned by the providers (or by
other persons or companies on their behalf). You may not modify, rent,
lease, loan, sell, distribute or create derivative works based on these
data, content, or resources (either in whole or in part) unless you have
been specifically given permission to do so by the relevant owners.

7.3 You acknowledge that your use of such third party applications,
data, content, or resources may be subject to separate terms between you
and the relevant third party. In that case, this License Agreement does
not affect your legal relationship with these third parties.
8. Using Android APIs

8.1 Google Data APIs

8.1.1 If you use any API to retrieve data from Google, you acknowledge
that the data may be protected by intellectual property rights which are
owned by Google or those parties that provide the data (or by other
persons or companies on their behalf). Your use of any such API may be
subject to additional Terms of Service. You may not modify, rent, lease,
loan, sell, distribute or create derivative works based on this data
(either in whole or in part) unless allowed by the relevant Terms of
Service.

8.1.2 If you use any API to retrieve a user's data from Google, you
acknowledge and agree that you shall retrieve data only with the user's
explicit consent and only when, and for the limited purposes for which,
the user has given you permission to do so.
9. Terminating this License Agreement

9.1 This License Agreement will continue to apply until terminated by
either you or Google as set out below.

9.2 If you want to terminate this License Agreement, you may do so by
ceasing your use of the SDK and any relevant developer credentials.

9.3 Google may at any time, terminate this License Agreement with you if:

(A) you have breached any provision of this License Agreement; or

(B) Google is required to do so by law; or

(C) the partner with whom Google offered certain parts of SDK (such as
APIs) to you has terminated its relationship with Google or ceased to
offer certain parts of the SDK to you; or

(D) Google decides to no longer providing the SDK or certain parts of
the SDK to users in the country in which you are resident or from which
you use the service, or the provision of the SDK or certain SDK services
to you by Google is, in Google's sole discretion, no longer commercially
viable.

9.4 When this License Agreement comes to an end, all of the legal
rights, obligations and liabilities that you and Google have benefited
from, been subject to (or which have accrued over time whilst this
License Agreement has been in force) or which are expressed to continue
indefinitely, shall be unaffected by this cessation, and the provisions
of paragraph 14.7 shall continue to apply to such rights, obligations
and liabilities indefinitely.
10. DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES

10.1 YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT YOUR USE OF THE SDK IS AT
YOUR SOLE RISK AND THAT THE SDK IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND "AS AVAILABLE"
WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND FROM GOOGLE.

10.2 YOUR USE OF THE SDK AND ANY MATERIAL DOWNLOADED OR OTHERWISE
OBTAINED THROUGH THE USE OF THE SDK IS AT YOUR OWN DISCRETION AND RISK
AND YOU ARE SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY DAMAGE TO YOUR COMPUTER SYSTEM OR
OTHER DEVICE OR LOSS OF DATA THAT RESULTS FROM SUCH USE.

10.3 GOOGLE FURTHER EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES AND CONDITIONS OF
ANY KIND, WHETHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE
IMPLIED WARRANTIES AND CONDITIONS OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A
PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NON-INFRINGEMENT.
11. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY

11.1 YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT GOOGLE, ITS SUBSIDIARIES
AND AFFILIATES, AND ITS LICENSORS SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU UNDER ANY
THEORY OF LIABILITY FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL
CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES THAT MAY BE INCURRED BY YOU,
INCLUDING ANY LOSS OF DATA, WHETHER OR NOT GOOGLE OR ITS REPRESENTATIVES
HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF OR SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF ANY
SUCH LOSSES ARISING.
12. Indemnification

12.1 To the maximum extent permitted by law, you agree to defend,
indemnify and hold harmless Google, its affiliates and their respective
directors, officers, employees and agents from and against any and all
claims, actions, suits or proceedings, as well as any and all losses,
liabilities, damages, costs and expenses (including reasonable attorneys
fees) arising out of or accruing from (a) your use of the SDK, (b) any
application you develop on the SDK that infringes any copyright,
trademark, trade secret, trade dress, patent or other intellectual
property right of any person or defames any person or violates their
rights of publicity or privacy, and (c) any non-compliance by you with
this License Agreement.
13. Changes to the License Agreement

13.1 Google may make changes to the License Agreement as it distributes
new versions of the SDK. When these changes are made, Google will make a
new version of the License Agreement available on the website where the
SDK is made available.
14. General Legal Terms

14.1 This License Agreement constitute the whole legal agreement between
you and Google and govern your use of the SDK (excluding any services
which Google may provide to you under a separate written agreement), and
completely replace any prior agreements between you and Google in
relation to the SDK.

14.2 You agree that if Google does not exercise or enforce any legal
right or remedy which is contained in this License Agreement (or which
Google has the benefit of under any applicable law), this will not be
taken to be a formal waiver of Google's rights and that those rights or
remedies will still be available to Google.

14.3 If any court of law, having the jurisdiction to decide on this
matter, rules that any provision of this License Agreement is invalid,
then that provision will be removed from this License Agreement without
affecting the rest of this License Agreement. The remaining provisions
of this License Agreement will continue to be valid and enforceable.

14.4 You acknowledge and agree that each member of the group of
companies of which Google is the parent shall be third party
beneficiaries to this License Agreement and that such other companies
shall be entitled to directly enforce, and rely upon, any provision of
this License Agreement that confers a benefit on (or rights in favor of)
them. Other than this, no other person or company shall be third party
beneficiaries to this License Agreement.

14.5 EXPORT RESTRICTIONS. THE SDK IS SUBJECT TO UNITED STATES EXPORT
LAWS AND REGULATIONS. YOU MUST COMPLY WITH ALL DOMESTIC AND
INTERNATIONAL EXPORT LAWS AND REGULATIONS THAT APPLY TO THE SDK. THESE
LAWS INCLUDE RESTRICTIONS ON DESTINATIONS, END USERS AND END USE.

14.6 The rights granted in this License Agreement may not be assigned or
transferred by either you or Google without the prior written approval
of the other party. Neither you nor Google shall be permitted to
delegate their responsibilities or obligations under this License
Agreement without the prior written approval of the other party.

14.7 This License Agreement, and your relationship with Google under
this License Agreement, shall be governed by the laws of the State of
California without regard to its conflict of laws provisions. You and
Google agree to submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts
located within the county of Santa Clara, California to resolve any
legal matter arising from this License Agreement. Notwithstanding this,
you agree that Google shall still be allowed to apply for injunctive
remedies (or an equivalent type of urgent legal relief) in any jurisdiction.

April 10, 2009
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sincerely,
RJack :)
Hyman Rosen
2010-01-11 16:44:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by RJack
UHHHH..... Doesn't look like Google embraced the GPL to me
Android runs a Linux kernel. Linux is distributed under the GPL.
Google could have chosen a non-GPLed kernel, as Apple did. But
they did not. Google uses a variety of licenses. For example,
Google Chromium is BSD-licensed
<http://code.google.com/chromium/terms.html>.
RJack
2010-01-11 17:24:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hyman Rosen
Post by RJack
UHHHH..... Doesn't look like Google embraced the GPL to me
Android runs a Linux kernel. Linux is distributed under the GPL.
Google could have chosen a non-GPLed kernel, as Apple did. But they
did not. Google uses a variety of licenses. For example, Google
Chromium is BSD-licensed
<http://code.google.com/chromium/terms.html>.
Android is NOT Linux, no matter how you spin it Hyman -- just
like Erik Andersen doesn't own “BusyBox,v.0.60.3”.

Hyman, the more you attempt to spin reality the less traction you have
while grasping for sanity.

Take rest a Laddy -- have a Hot Toddy and for goodness' sake RELAX.


Sincerely,
RJack :)
Hyman Rosen
2010-01-11 17:40:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by RJack
spin reality
Funny that, coming from you.

While there is no chance that obsessive ant-GPL posters will
acknowledge their errors, it is somewhat valuable to respond
to them with corrections so that anyone coming across the
threads by chance is not misled.
Alan Mackenzie
2010-01-11 18:40:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by RJack
Post by Hyman Rosen
Post by RJack
UHHHH..... Doesn't look like Google embraced the GPL to me
"Embrace" is a silly word here. Firms don't wrap their arms round
software to give it hugs. "Embrace" is one of these well-nigh
meaningless words loved by market droids, one which sound really positive
and friendly, yet can be used when the user is anxious to avoid being
pinned down to any precise meaning. It looks like that's how you've used
the word above.
Post by RJack
Post by Hyman Rosen
Android runs a Linux kernel. Linux is distributed under the GPL.
Google could have chosen a non-GPLed kernel, as Apple did. But they
did not. Google uses a variety of licenses. For example, Google
Chromium is BSD-licensed
<http://code.google.com/chromium/terms.html>.
Android is NOT Linux, no matter how you spin it Hyman
RJack, "is" isn't a helpful word, here. Android contains Linux, and
includes other software too. You may be getting confused between Linux
the kernel and the multitude of "Linux"es which, along with the kernel,
include GNU system software and tools, BSD licensed networking stuff and
MIT licensed X11. In that sense, Android "is" just as much a "Linux" as
Red Hat, or SuSE, or Debian, or Gentoo, or ......
Post by RJack
Sincerely,
RJack :)
--
Alan Mackenzie (Nurmberg, Germany).
RJack
2010-01-11 22:42:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Mackenzie
Post by RJack
Post by Hyman Rosen
Post by RJack
UHHHH..... Doesn't look like Google embraced the GPL to me
"Embrace" is a silly word here. Firms don't wrap their arms round
software to give it hugs. "Embrace" is one of these well-nigh
meaningless words loved by market droids, one which sound really
positive and friendly, yet can be used when the user is anxious to
avoid being pinned down to any precise meaning. It looks like that's
how you've used the word above.
"Embrace" and extend is one of the most infamous business strategy known
to the Software World. You may not like it but it's reality.
Post by Alan Mackenzie
Post by RJack
Post by Hyman Rosen
Android runs a Linux kernel. Linux is distributed under the GPL.
Google could have chosen a non-GPLed kernel, as Apple did. But
they did not. Google uses a variety of licenses. For example,
Google Chromium is BSD-licensed
<http://code.google.com/chromium/terms.html>.
Android is NOT Linux, no matter how you spin it Hyman
RJack, "is" isn't a helpful word, here. Android contains Linux, and
includes other software too. You may be getting confused between
Linux the kernel and the multitude of "Linux"es which, along with the
kernel, include GNU system software and tools, BSD licensed
networking stuff and MIT licensed X11. In that sense, Android "is"
just as much a "Linux" as Red Hat, or SuSE, or Debian, or Gentoo, or
......
I'm not confused about anything at all. Android is Android as in
"Google" and Linux is Linux as in "Linus Torvalds". I know that you GNU
fanatics believe all software is "Free Software" but strength of belief
doesn't make it true.

Sincerely,
RJack :)
Alan Mackenzie
2010-01-12 10:47:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by RJack
Post by Alan Mackenzie
Post by RJack
Post by RJack
UHHHH..... Doesn't look like Google embraced the GPL to me
"Embrace" is a silly word here. Firms don't wrap their arms round
software to give it hugs. "Embrace" is one of these well-nigh
meaningless words loved by market droids, one which sound really
positive and friendly, yet can be used when the user is anxious to
avoid being pinned down to any precise meaning. It looks like that's
how you've used the word above.
"Embrace" and extend is one of the most infamous business strategy
known to the Software World. You may not like it but it's reality.
"Embrace, extend and extinguish" has a well recognised meaning.
"Embrace" on its own, in the context of doing business, doesn't. Note in
this context that the GPL provides an effective counter to "embrace,
extend and extinguish".
Post by RJack
Post by Alan Mackenzie
Post by RJack
Android is NOT Linux, no matter how you spin it Hyman
RJack, "is" isn't a helpful word, here. Android contains Linux, and
includes other software too. You may be getting confused between
Linux the kernel and the multitude of "Linux"es which, along with the
kernel, include GNU system software and tools, BSD licensed networking
stuff and MIT licensed X11. In that sense, Android "is" just as much
a "Linux" as Red Hat, or SuSE, or Debian, or Gentoo, or ......
I'm not confused about anything at all. Android is Android as in
"Google" and Linux is Linux as in "Linus Torvalds".
And Android is based on Linux as in "Linus Torvalds", just like Red Hat
is based on Linux. This is what free software is all about - using and
re-using without encumbrance. If you want to go on believing that
Android "is"n't Linux, then carry on. In a sense it's true, but it's not
a useful way of thinking.
Post by RJack
I know that you GNU fanatics believe all software is "Free Software"
but strength of belief doesn't make it true.
Don't be silly. Nowhere near all software is free. Vast swathes of it
are proprietary. If all software were free, the FSF would shut up shop,
it's purpose having been achieved.
Post by RJack
Sincerely,
RJack :)
--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
Alexander Terekhov
2010-01-09 13:01:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alexander Terekhov
The NYSD court seems to get fed up with SFLC practice of filing delay
stipulations.
"No further extensions for this, or any defendant in this action, will
be granted. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 1/6/10) (cd)
(Entered: 01/07/2010)"
http://www.terekhov.de/09-cv-10155/19.pdf
And on the next day...

01/08/2010 20 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer. Document
filed by Best Buy Co., Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Stipulation)(Simmons,
Kevin) (Entered: 01/08/2010)
01/08/2010 21 STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME: 1. The time for Comtrend to
answer, move against, or otherwise respond to the Complaint is hereby
extend to and including March 8, 2010. 2. Comtrend waives any Objection
with respect to the service of process of the Complaint but otherwise
reserves all of its defenses and objections. Comtred Corporation answer
due 3/8/2010. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 1/8/10) (db).
(Entered: 01/08/2010)
01/08/2010 22 STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME: 1. The time for ZYXEL
Communications Inc. to answer, move against, or otherwise respond to the
Complaint is hereby extend to and including March 8, 2010. 2. ZYXEL
waives any Objection with respect to the service of process of the
Complaint but otherwise reserves all of its defenses and objections.
ZYXEL Communications Inc. Answer due 3/8/2010. (Signed by Judge Shira A.
Scheindlin on 1/7/10) (db) Modified on 1/8/2010 (db). (Entered:
01/08/2010)
01/08/2010 23 STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME: 1. The time for
Dobbs-Stanford Corporation to answer, move against, or otherwise respond
to the Complaint is hereby extend to and including March 8, 2010. 2.
Dobbs-Stanford Corporation waives any Objection with respect to the
service of process of the Complaint but otherwise reserves all of its
defenses and objections. Dobbs-Stanford Corporation answer due 3/8/2010.
(Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 1/7/10) (db) (Entered:
01/08/2010)
01/08/2010 24 STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME FOR DEFENDANT SAMSUNG
ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.: 1. The time for Samsung to answer, move
against, or otherwise respond to theComplaint is hereby extended to and
including March 8, 2010. 2. Samsung waives any objection with respect to
the service of process of the Complaint, but otherwise reserves all of
its defenses and objections. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. answer
due 3/8/2010. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 1/7/10) (db)
(Entered: 01/08/2010)

Hmm.

Here is Best Buy's motion:

http://www.terekhov.de/09-cv-10155/20.pdf

regards,
alexander.

--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards
too, whereas GNU cannot.)
Alexander Terekhov
2010-02-03 21:56:09 UTC
Permalink
(Update)
Post by RJack
After having read this newsgroup and learning that you must register
your BusyBox copyrights prior to filing suit for infringement, the SFLC
has filed a new lawsuit with fourteen defendants this time.
Seven defendants appeared though the "NOTICE OF APPEARANCE" by their
lawyers:

Comtred
ZYXEL
Dobbs
Western
Westinghouse
Astak
JVC

thus far.

Pacer's "02/03/2010 38" for JVC was the latest.

01/06/2010 15 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Emily Bab Kirsch on behalf of
Comtred Corporation (Kirsch, Emily) (Entered: 01/06/2010)
01/07/2010 16 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Emily Bab Kirsch on behalf of
ZYXEL Communications Inc. (Kirsch, Emily) (Entered: 01/07/2010)
01/07/2010 17 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Michael T. Mervis on behalf of
Dobbs-Stanford Corporation (Mervis, Michael) (Entered: 01/07/2010)
01/07/2010 18 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Justin F. Heinrich on behalf of
Dobbs-Stanford Corporation (Heinrich, Justin) (Entered: 01/07/2010)
01/26/2010 31 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Ognjan Varbanov Shentov on behalf
of Western Digital Corporation (Shentov, Ognjan) (Entered: 01/26/2010)
01/27/2010 32 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Kyle Bradford Fleming on behalf
of Westinghouse Digital Electronics, LLC (Fleming, Kyle) (Entered:
01/27/2010)
02/02/2010 36 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Emily Bab Kirsch on behalf of
Astak Inc. (Kirsch, Emily) (Entered: 02/02/2010)
02/02/2010 37 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Lynn Michelle Marvin on behalf of
Western Digital Corporation (Marvin, Lynn) (Entered: 02/02/2010)
02/03/2010 38 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by David Lawrence Yohai on behalf of
JVC Americas Corporation (Yohai, David) (Entered: 02/03/2010)

regards,
alexander.

--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards
too, whereas GNU cannot.)
Alexander Terekhov
2010-02-10 11:20:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alexander Terekhov
(Update)
Post by RJack
After having read this newsgroup and learning that you must register
your BusyBox copyrights prior to filing suit for infringement, the SFLC
has filed a new lawsuit with fourteen defendants this time.
Seven defendants appeared though the "NOTICE OF APPEARANCE" by their
Comtred
ZYXEL
Dobbs
Western
Westinghouse
Astak
JVC
Humax
Phoebe

BTW, Eben The Bullshiter was bragging about his "I've got a GPL
compliance lawsuit against BestBuy" during the freetard cult
brainwashing fest in the Q&A section...

http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2010/feb/08/audio-and-video-eben-moglens-talk-freedom-cloud-no/

if I recall correctly.

I wish the real lawyers now appearing in the lawsuit decide "enough is
enough" and bring a disciplinary bar action against the bullshiter...
Post by Alexander Terekhov
thus far.
Pacer's "02/03/2010 38" for JVC was the latest.
01/06/2010 15 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Emily Bab Kirsch on behalf of
Comtred Corporation (Kirsch, Emily) (Entered: 01/06/2010)
01/07/2010 16 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Emily Bab Kirsch on behalf of
ZYXEL Communications Inc. (Kirsch, Emily) (Entered: 01/07/2010)
01/07/2010 17 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Michael T. Mervis on behalf of
Dobbs-Stanford Corporation (Mervis, Michael) (Entered: 01/07/2010)
01/07/2010 18 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Justin F. Heinrich on behalf of
Dobbs-Stanford Corporation (Heinrich, Justin) (Entered: 01/07/2010)
01/26/2010 31 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Ognjan Varbanov Shentov on behalf
of Western Digital Corporation (Shentov, Ognjan) (Entered: 01/26/2010)
01/27/2010 32 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Kyle Bradford Fleming on behalf
01/27/2010)
02/02/2010 36 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Emily Bab Kirsch on behalf of
Astak Inc. (Kirsch, Emily) (Entered: 02/02/2010)
02/02/2010 37 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Lynn Michelle Marvin on behalf of
Western Digital Corporation (Marvin, Lynn) (Entered: 02/02/2010)
02/03/2010 38 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by David Lawrence Yohai on behalf of
JVC Americas Corporation (Yohai, David) (Entered: 02/03/2010)
02/05/2010 39 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Airina Lynn Rodrigues on behalf
of Humax USA Inc. (Rodrigues, Airina) (Entered: 02/05/2010)
02/05/2010 40 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Andrew Lawrence Deutsch on behalf
of Humax USA Inc. (Deutsch, Andrew) (Entered: 02/05/2010)
02/09/2010 41 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Andrew Kaver on behalf of Phoebe
Micro, Inc. (Kaver, Andrew) (Entered: 02/09/2010)

regards,
alexander.

--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards
too, whereas GNU cannot.)

Loading...