On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 5:14 PM, Lars Viklund <zao@acc.umu.se> wrote:

On Sat, May 07, 2011 at 10:06:23AM -0500, Matt Chambers wrote:

...

...

... pointless quoted legal jargon...

What's your point?

Your mail client seems to be misconfigured as it doesn't seem to reference the message you're replying to, which ends up breaking the message threading in many mail clients.

So did your's ;-)

As for Alexander, he has hopefully gone on to haunt some more receptive community.

I agree with Matt. Perhaps there is a point somewhere. But I don't get it at all. Alexander; can you say what you want in one sentence? /$

On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 6:46 PM, Lars Viklund <zao@acc.umu.se> wrote:

On Sat, May 07, 2011 at 06:22:23PM +0200, Henrik Sundberg wrote:

...

So did your's ;-)

Nope, mine has the proper References: and In-Reply-To: headers, referring to Matt's message, just like your headers references mine.

Surely you don't expect me to manually rejoin a broken thread through a reply? That if anything would throw clients into a confused state :)

No, but your subject change created a new thread for me in gmail (but this reply didn't) /$

On Sat, May 07, 2011 at 08:04:23PM +0200, Henrik Sundberg wrote:

On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 6:46 PM, Lars Viklund <zao@acc.umu.se> wrote:

...

On Sat, May 07, 2011 at 06:22:23PM +0200, Henrik Sundberg wrote:

...

So did your's ;-)

Nope, mine has the proper References: and In-Reply-To: headers, referring to Matt's message, just like your headers references mine.

Surely you don't expect me to manually rejoin a broken thread through a reply? That if anything would throw clients into a confused state :)

No, but your subject change created a new thread for me in gmail (but this reply didn't)

Then you should file a bug against gmail, as they seem to have a rather unorthodox interpretation of threading. In any way, this is degenerating into even more off topic-ness, so I'll stop now. And oh, David. This list does not like top-posting ;) http://www.boost.org/community/policy.html#quoting -- Lars Viklund | zao@acc.umu.se

On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 10:42 PM, Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> wrote:

To repeat:

http://terekhov.de/178.pdf

Alexander, So you have nothing to say but want to have more visits on your website? I wouldn't risk such visit. Or are you actually able to write a sentence with your point? /$

...

On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 10:42 PM, Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> wrote:

...

To repeat:

http://terekhov.de/178.pdf

Fascinating reading for those that are interested in "IP" law. Not much to do with Boost though. :-)

John Maddock wrote: [...]

Interesting defense too: "even if we did pinch some code, it isn't worth anything, so we shouldn't be punished". Paraphrasing of course and since

http://terekhov.de/178.pdf "... the facts in this case indicate that if Plaintiffs were to prevail, a monetary award would adequately compensate them. “It is well established that ‘irreparable injury means injury for which a monetary award cannot be adequate compensation.’” Loveridge v. Pendleton Woolen Mills, Inc., 788 F.2d 914, 917 (2d Cir. 1986). And “where money damages are adequate compensation, a preliminary injunction will not issue . . .” Id. at 918. In this case, Plaintiffs contemplated that a monetary award would be sufficient compensation, evidenced by a Fiscal Sponsorship Agreement on BusyBox. (Roberg-Perez Decl. Ex. C.) Plaintiffs agreed that, in connection with license compliance efforts, funds would be collected and deposited in an account, with monies to be used for further enforcement efforts and/or other BusyBox-related activities. (Id. at ¶¶ 5, 6.) Nowhere does the Fiscal Sponsorship Agreement suggest that there would be any injury to either Plaintiff not redressable by a monetary award. (Id.) While the arguments in their Motion are not supported by evidence, it is important to note that those arguments also do not establish irreparable harm. Acting as if they have a copyright to the entire BusyBox program, Plaintiffs argue that they will “lose control over the modification and distribution of BusyBox and the considerable market share and reputation they have established in BusyBox.” (Dkt. No. 164 at 12.) But Mr. Andersen does not have a copyright in the entire BusyBox program, or to all versions of BusyBox, and neither Plaintiff has rights to its market share or its reputation. And, even if sales of the accused Blu-ray players were to be enjoined, the Blu-ray software chips containing the accused code would still be distributed by a third party, Broadcom, to its other customers in the Blu-ray industry. (Khan Decl. at ¶ 2.) Thus, to the extent that Plaintiffs are concerned about distribution of object code containing BusyBox, exactly the same object code would continue to be distributed to the public, through Broadcom’s other customers. Moreover, Mr. Andersen could not identify specific harms to market share or reputation when given the chance to do so in his deposition. He admitted that he would have to speculate as to whether the sale of the accused Best Buy Blu-ray players decreased the number of individuals using BusyBox. (Roberg-Perez Decl. Ex. F, at 151:24-152:8.) He could name no specific instances where his reputation was adversely affected because of the sale of the accused players, admitted that he was not personally aware of anyone who had maligned his reputation, and had no knowledge of any way in which his reputation had been harmed. (Roberg-Perez Decl. Ex. F, at 144:3-17, 150:4-13.) Nor could he identify any business he has lost because of the sale of the accused players. (Id. at 150:14-151:12.) Last, Plaintiffs delayed bring their motion for a preliminary injunction for 14 months. Courts have routinely considered the delay in bringing such a motion as evidence that the Plaintiffs truly felt no legitimate threat of irreparable harm. See, e.g., Citibank, N.A. v. Citytrust, 756 F.2d 273, 276 (2d Cir. 1985) (“Delay in seeking enforcement of [a preliminary injunction] . . . tends to indicate at least a reduced need for such drastic, speedy action.”); Magnet Commc’ns., LLC v. Magnet Commc’ns, Inc., No. 00 Civ. 5746, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14460, at *4-5 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 7, 2001) (denying a request for a preliminary injunction where defendant in a declaratory judgment action did not move for injunctive relief until twelve weeks after the complaint was filed); Gidatex, S.R.L. v. Campaniello Imports, Ltd., 13 F. Supp. 2d 417, 419 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (noting that delay “standing alone,” may preclude the granting of preliminary injunctive relief); Chase Manhattan Corp. v. Nw. Mut. Life, Civ. No. 92 Civ. 4978, 193 U.S. 82047288. 1 19 Dist. LEXIS 2271, at *5, 11 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 27, 1993) (denying a preliminary injunction where plaintiffs did not make their motion until six months after filing suit). Plaintiffs previously advised the Court that their delay should be excused because the parties had been engaged in settlement discussions. (Status Conference Hearing (2/2/11) Tr., Dkt. No. 170 at 24-25.) Plaintiffs have injected settlement discussions into the dispute. Those discussions are also independently admissible pursuant to Rule 408 to establish an absence of delay on Best Buy’s part. The settlement discussions indicate that Plaintiffs, not Best Buy, caused the delay by trying to muscle unbridled veto power over Best Buy products based upon their ever-shifting, self-serving views of other open source code irrelevant to this case. In the absence of any showing of actual and specific harm to either Plaintiff, the request for a preliminary injunction should be denied." regards, alexander. -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.)

On 05/09/2011 12:53 PM, Phil Endecott wrote:

Alexander Terekhov wrote:

...

"... the facts in this case indicate that if Plaintiffs were to prevail,

Right, I've had enough of this now. Will someone with suitable permissions please unsubscribe this troll so that we don't have to read any more of this junk? Thank you.

Phil.

I agree that this whole issue is silly and should never have been brought up in the first place, but it nonetheless needs to be acknowledged that after his opinion was heard and people stopped asking him questions about it he allowed the matter to be dropped, so it's not his fault that you are still hearing about it one week later; it was others who insisted on resurrecting the thread and directly provoking him until he responded. Cheers, Greg

On 5/9/11 7:33 PM, Gruenke, Matt wrote:

On Mon 5/9/2011 8:27 PM, Gregory Crosswhite wrote:

...

it nonetheless needs to be acknowledged that after his opinion was heard and people stopped asking him questions about it he allowed the matter to be dropped, I'm not so sure it *needs* to be acknowledged. If we start down that path, I can imagine several other aspects of this thread that people might feel an equal or greater need to have acknowledged.

When people start talking about unsubscribing someone for being a troll because the supposed troll keeps insisting on bringing a stupid offensive issue up then the fact that the supposed troll was the one who allowed the issue to be dropped until others insisted on bringing it back to the forelight is something that does need to be acknowledged in the interest of fairness.

...

it was others who insisted on resurrecting the thread and directly provoking him until he responded. "Provoking"? That's an interesting perspective. I followed the entire thread and while I recall a lot of confusion and frustration on the part of list contributors, I do not recall much in the way of outright provocation of Alexander. On the other hand, was his initial subject ([boost] [provocative] Whom did the SFC pay to list boost developers as a whole in "Current Member Projects"?) not a clear acknowledgment that provocation factored prominently into his objectives? It's one thing to side with his argument (assuming it's appropriate for the list), but to defend his behavior in this thread seems unnecessary.

Sure, Alexander posted a lot of offensive conspiratorial nonsense in his original posts and I have never said anything to defend it nor would I --- in fact, I even teased him for it when I realized what was going on. If you want to talk about banning him based on that alone then fair enough, just don't take the fact that we are still talking about this one week later as evidence that he is refusing to drop the issue and therefore a reason itself to ban him; that is really all that I am saying here. Cheers, Greg