Re: [DNG] Yes I am an attorney. - Re: Identity of OP (Software written by contractors and the 'work for hire') concept - To Bruce Perens
Date: Tue Aug 01 2017 - 14:38:42 EST
Explain exactly how I was "wasting" your time. You responded with
derision and mockery when I brought up laches; as if it was no issue.
Then you made a claim that a court would accept a _plaintiff's_ claim
that they just had to sit on their rights because they "had no money to
hire a lawyer" when the court would simply inform said plaintiff that
they can bring the action pro-se. There is not a right council in civil
cases even for indigent defendants, and you mock me for bringing up
laches when attempting to obtain injunctive relief when we are talking
about a plaintiff in a civil case?
Courts don't even accept a civil defendants claim that they cannot pay
an ordered judgement (where the court believes they money exist
"somewhere" and the defendant is holding out) owing to the fact that the
court had them jailed for contempt of court for six months prior and
thus defendant had no means of raising said funds. Back in the slammer
for another six months, over and over again. No, Bruce. A middle class
programmer trying to defeat a laches affirmative defense, when he is of
sound mind and body, solely with a claim of inability... will not work.
I brainstorm some of the affirmative defenses the opposition WILL use,
and you mock me and put my reputation as it pertains to legal knowledge
in a negative false light. This is when you, Bruce, are not an attorney
and are thus not likely involved in the lengthy run-up to your court
appearances (as an expert witness), where-as I am an attorney and must
anticipate such road-blocks.
Here's another attorney on the LKML warning another poster about some...
hmmm.. affirmative defenses ... such as laches and friends.
On 2017-07-30 07:14, David C. Rankin wrote:
On 07/30/2017 12:55 AM, David Lang wrote:
You are thinking of Trademarks, they must be defended or you loose
Contracts and Licenses do not need to be defended at every chance or
No, not always, it can apply in plain contract as well. The defenses
could be later raised by grsecurity if this issue goes unaddressed is
latches; and (2) waiver. It is a slippery slope. While, without
the dubious nature of the current use of the defenses (as catch-all,
kitchen-sink affirmative-defenses), they can be expected to be raised
rights under GPL to insure no further restrictions are placed on
use of the kernel-code are not enforced.
I hope there is a centralized forum that will be established for this
(there may be and I'm just not smart enough to have found it yet).
if for nothing else, so the advantages and disadvantages of both
inaction, can be peer-reviewed on both the legal and technical side.
For the record here's what Bruce Perens had to say about me:
OK, I apologize to all who were involved in this conversation. I will
block further emails from "aconcernedfossdev" and no longer encourage
(later a third party asked him why):
The statement about Grsecurity still stands. Aconcernedfossdev was
wasting my time with naive argument and I don't have to suffer fools
On 2017-08-01 15:04, Bruce Perens wrote:
The person posting as "nisus" is "MikeyUSA", who is mostly known for
way-over-the-top misogyny and trolling and is banned from Debian
lists, etc. Obviously I have the right to choose who I will correspond
with, and chose to block him for wasting my time before I was informed
who he actually was.
Dng mailing list