| |||||||||||||
Let 'em sueLet 'em suePosted Sep 26, 2007 20:27 UTC (Wed) by ncm (subscriber, #165)In reply to: GPL enforcement: waiting for the Monsoon by pbardet Parent article: GPL enforcement: waiting for the Monsoon
If the company is deriving financial benefits by stalling negotiations, that seems like a good enough reason to ask for an injunction.
I also don't agree that it looks like an innocent mistake. It looks more like "let 'em sue". I don't see any of the markers that suggest innocence. The "no-reverse-engineering" EULA, in fact, is hard evidence to the contrary -- especially considering they actually referred to it in e-mail on the subject of compliance.
The Busybox developers should get their injunction, and then as a condition of lifting it extract a percentage of the gross sale price of each box sold, and make sure everybody knows they got it. People need to see teeth in the GPL.
(Log in to post comments)
Let 'em sue Posted Sep 27, 2007 2:30 UTC (Thu) by rickmoen (subscriber, #6943) [Link] I agree: Let 'em sue, as what I've been known to call "reality therapy". That having been said:ncm wrote: The "no-reverse-engineering" EULA, in fact, is hard evidence to the contrary -- especially considering they actually referred to it in e-mail on the subject of compliance. I can envision that as a spur-of-the-moment attempt to finesse yet another complaint from yet another random Internet poster: The unlucky helldesk worker stuck with looking after the support forum sees someone's implied legal threat about copyright violation, and attempts to one-up it by dreaming up a counter-threat about contract violation. I doubt it's high-level policy; I think it seems more like one tired forum-janitor's off-the-cuff invention. Probably, they're like most companies in not (institutionally) taking e-mailed or forum-posted legal claims seriously, thinking that anything actually real would come in a demand letter sent certified mail from a law firm. It might be worth noting, for similar cases in the future, that such a letter might be the most pragmatic way to telegraph to the right people that this is a serious matter. (In USA, DMCA takedowns under 17 U.S.C. 512(c)(3) will usually get someone's attention, too. In this case, that would be to Intermedia.net, Inc. of Sunnyvale, CA, whose IP netblock www.monsoonmultimedia.com is in.) In other respects the "reverse engineering" claim is a red herring: If a company asserts that those exposing its copyright infringements are violating contract, one's correct response is "If so, so what?" That is, if the company seriously alleges intent sue its accusors, and to try to convince a judge that their noticing use of busybox/Linux violates a contract requirement, that'd be interesting (if unlikely), but is completely irrelevant to the copyright violation. Rick Moen
The SFLC *sent* a registered mail letter, and it was ignored. Posted Sep 27, 2007 6:31 UTC (Thu) by JesseW (guest, #41816) [Link] Per this comment by Rob Landley, the SFLC did send a letter by registered mail(well, signature required FedEx, technically) telling Monsoon they were violating copyright, and the letter was ignored. It's hard to engage company principals when the company won't take your calls. (Or your emails. And signs for a fedex containing your complaint and your contact info, but haven't replied at all a week later. (The comment was originally made on Groklaw, which is down ATM, but happily someone has already copied the comment to LWN, so I linked to that instead.)
The SFLC *sent* a registered mail letter, and it was ignored. Posted Sep 27, 2007 9:18 UTC (Thu) by rickmoen (subscriber, #6943) [Link] You know, now that you mention it, I did see Rob's comment to that effect on Groklaw, but had forgotten -- perhaps because it boggles the mind that an allegedly serious company was that oblivious (and I hope they are indeed reading this). I guess they're just insisting on being Darwin's clients, then.
(I know Rob Landley, by the way, and he's an eminently reasonable guy.)
Rick Moen
|
|||||||||||||