Hyman Rosen wrote:
> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>> Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
>> truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 7 of the Complaint.
> ...
>> EIGHTH DEFENSE (RIGHT TO ASSERT ADDITIONAL DEFENSES)
> ...
>
> From my extensive legal knowledge gained from reading Groklaw (:-)
> this is a typical response to a complaint.
Yes. . . Groklaw!!!
That's where Hymen learned that a license is not a contract.
******************************
The GPL is a License, Not a Contract, Which is Why the Sky Isn't
Falling
Sunday, December 14 2003 @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
09:06 PM EST
******************************
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20031214210634851
Obviously The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
didn't learn of Her Majesty's decree:
"Although the United States Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 101-
1332, grants exclusive jurisdiction for infringement claims to the
federal courts, those courts construe copyrights as contracts and
turn to the relevant state law to interpret them."; Automation by
Design, Inc. v. Raybestos Products Co., 463 F.3d 749, (United
States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 2006)
Should we all learn our copyright law at Groklaw?
Sincerely,
Rjack :)
The defendant denies
> everything but the most straightforward facts, and asserts every
> possible defense. It is then up to the plaintiff to prove his case,
> demonstrating that the allegations are true and that the claimed
> defenses do not apply.
>
> > Pretrial Conference set for 8/21/2008 at 03:00 PM before Judge
> > Harold Baer.
>
Q: How many pretrial conferences have been held in the BusyBox cases?
A: Zero.
> This, by the way, is why those complaints from some quarters about
> why the SFLC don't go to trial instead of settling are silly.
> At the pre-trial conferences the judge talks to all sides, and if
> one of them says that they're prepared to settle, the other side
> can't say that they want a trial anyway.
Sincerely,
Rjack :)
|
