FSF, OSI and Busybox [LWN.net]

FSF, OSI and Busybox

Posted Dec 19, 2008 22:25 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (guest, #1954)
In reply to: FSF, OSI and Busybox by nix
Parent article: The FSF raises the stakes for Cisco

they'd surely not tell him and give his employer advance notice of a pending suit.

Why wouldn't they want Cisco to have advance notice of the lawsuit? I assume they told Cisco clearly multiple times that they intended to sue (hoping Cisco would respond by making it unnecessary).

Legal process isn't like war.

to post comments

FSF, OSI and Busybox

Posted Jan 13, 2009 2:05 UTC (Tue) by darkonc (guest, #14197) [Link] (1 responses)

Once you pass the process off to the lawyers, a lot of analogies between war and the legal system hold true. You have a pretty-much no-holds-barred system there the point is to win 'at all costs'. You have exorbitant costs and commonly many innocent victims.

The list could go on....

> Legal process isn't like war.

FSF, OSI and Busybox

Posted Jan 13, 2009 4:31 UTC (Tue) by giraffedata (guest, #1954) [Link]

You have a pretty-much no-holds-barred system there the point is to win 'at all costs'

The legal process I know isn't anything like that. First of all, most holds are barred. There are rules that fill books, and a referee always there to ensure only the most sportsmanlike holds are used. And in civil court, few litigants are interested in winning at all costs. In fact, most cases people would like to win don't even become lawsuits because the minimum cost of winning would exceed the payoff.

I don't think a surprise lawsuit is anything like a surprise attack anyway. Imagine a military attack where you suddenly inform the enemy that you're going to bomb him as soon as he's had time to prepare a thorough defense, including getting from you all the details of what kind of bomb you will drop and where. That's what a surprise lawsuit would be.