Posted on 07/24/2003 2:41:23 AM PDT by kattracks
I fear he's home free
"I am a gardener," Lewis told CNSNews.com.
The gardener beat him?
No, and that's impressive.
For the big words, I'll open a separate window to Merriam-Webster Online
Well Kazaa, Morpheus, and the rest have all won againist RIAA, so much for not being able to win.
Boise is an absolute failure, his performance in Florida was proof of that.
Phil Beck took each of Boise "expert wittnesses" and one by one disemboweled them, it was fun to watch.
You need to get your fact straight.
They are the ones who are illegally distributing other people's copyrighted software, since they are currently in violation of the GPL, but are still distributing kernels.
They also want to sell per-seat licenses to software that cannot legally be licensed that way.
But, you knew that already, didn't you? You just had to get in your daily (or is it hourly) shot at Linux.
To say Boise is some techno wizard is a stretch. Boise doesn't use a PC and is well known for being proud of that.
I've met numerous lawyers but only a couple that I thought had any real imagination. Overall, they create more problems than they solve and they only solve problems when it appears that the money they have been paid to work on solving a problem is about to run out.
Yes it was. I met Mr. Beck at the time, he liked the poster sign I held on the courthouse steps (many thanks to Registered) and even gave me an official copy off the top of a stack he had of a legal brief he was dropping off at the court that day.
Morpheus/RIAA trials are still going on, guess we'll just have to see how they all turn out. I hope Morpheus loses like Napster did because I don't support the free and unregulated distribution of copyrighted material. Apple's new system is far superior.
Isn't kazaa hosted in some foreign country? Indonesia or some other area close to there?
Yeah it would be. Which is why I never said it. Tech industry was the quote, I believe. Sorry you missed it.
Well that is clearly your opinion, but I guess we'll have to see if anyone is willing to bring those charges forward. So far we haven't seen anyone willing to do so. If you are confident of your own ability to make this charge in court, by all means, be my guest.
However, several of the authors of various parts of the kernel have already filed a lawsuit against SCO on this basis, and we will learn more in the discovery phase, which has not yet arrived.
The Judge ruled that the Universal vs Sony case applies. (Sony Betamax VCR)
Apple's new system is far superior.
But Riaa has been accused of antitrust for wanting to control the music downloads.
She'll get on her knees for anyone who carries the stench of Klintoon
Haven't seen anything about this. Is this overseas perhaps?
How could I not remember? It's not that often that a lawyer lies to the court so boldly. Pullen v. Mulligan denied dimpled ballots were indicative of voter intent. Boies stated that Pullen upheld dimples as evidence of intent.
Sounds like the fix is in.
There are people talking about filing such cases, but I don't think it could have happened yet because until SCO actually sells one of these licenses, and some money changes hands, they haven't actually done anything.
So far they haven't even made an offer to sell such a license, and I doubt they ever will. An "offer to sell" has to include a description of the thing to be sold, a price, and a set of terms and conditions. You'll notice they have carefully stayed away from naming any of those things. They are simply blowing smoke in the air, saying things like, "Well, it'll sorta be like this and the price will be similar to other things." But no actual offer to sell at a price.
I suspect they will never, ever, offer for sale anything called a "license to use linux." All the paperwork will say you're buying a license to use UNIXware. The threat will remain unstated in the offer-to-sell, and in the paperwork. There will therefore never be an on-paper "violation of the GPL" for a kernel developer to sue over. SCO wil say they are not licensing linux; they are licensing their own product, UNIXware, which these fine people decided to buy out of the goodness of their hearts.
They have to do it that way, because otherwise they open themselves up to charges of 'misrepresentation of need.' They can never actually come right out and say, "You need to buy this in order to run linux." They could only say that after their claim to owning something in linux is upheld. To date it has not been, and it may never be.
I look for a very clever just-this-side-of-the-law "encouragement" from SCO to buy UNIXware licenses. They'll never say you need it. It'll be more like the mob... "Nice bank account you have there. Shame if anything should happen to it." But nothing directly tied to the UNIXware license.
It'll be interesting to see whether SCO ever actually sues anybody, the way they say they're going to. It's an easy bluff to call. The first guy in the barrel gets an all-expenses-paid defense from OSDL. That's cheap, and it tells everybody else to relax the case will still be in court when Hell freezes over. SCO can file more, but those are natural "consolidation" candidates because they're all the same issue. Bluff called; FUD alert cancelled. Tune in six years from now, to see if anything's changed.
Ah, you must not have dial-up like I do. It takes too long to pull up another site like that on dial up. I have always liked spelling, I don't know why. Not always good at it, but I like it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.