4 ms·

Bringing a lawsuit against someone when the only grounds you have is you don’t like what they are doing and you know that is the definition of “bad faith”. The

Bringing a lawsuit against someone when the only grounds you have is you don’t like what they are doing and you know that is the definition of “bad faith”. The defendant may be an asshole, but they have every legal right to be one. RedHat is so clearly in the wrong, it’s disgusting.

ineedasername 5y ago
I think it's fair to say that neither party had pure motives here. But a decision in favor of preserving what (in my view) amounts to a free speech issue seems like a win in this case. There are better ways to deal with assholes than setting what would have been a bad precedent for future cases if the ruling had gone the other way.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- denton-scratch 5y ago
  An arbitration decision doesn't set a precedent.
  - ineedasername 5y ago
    Every decision sets a precedent that can be referred to by future parties as examples of how a similar case was handled previously, and presumably the folks deciding these will want some minimal level of consistency between decisions. But sure, you're correct in the limited sense of that something like US Supreme Court stare decisis doctrine isn't built into the arbitration system, and so precedents are not binding or prima facie evidence that a current case should be decided the same way as a prior one.
    - denton-scratch 5y ago
      Well, I don't presume to know how US law works. In the UK, precedents are set by the decisions of the High Court (civil) or Crown Court (criminal), and by higher courts. Lower courts don't set precendents I believe - IANAL.
      - ineedasername 5y ago
        In the US there is a distinction of "binding" precedent and a "persuasive" precedent. A ruling that isn't binding can still be used in another case as evidence for a the validity of a line of reasoning, which can be persuasive, but the court is not obligated to give it the same standing as binding precedent. Even then, "binding" judicial precedent isn't binding in the strict sense. A court can still choose to disregard it, or hunt for a reason why it doesn't apply, but that gives the losing party much stronger grounds to get a case overturned on appeal. It's not a great look for a judge to have most of their decisions overturned though, so going against such precedents is usually not done without good reason, but it happens often enough to keep the appeals courts in business. The looser persuasive sense of precedent is what I meant: The arbitrators will not have to accord a prior decision any special status, but they will certainly want to have some level of consistency, and for tough decisions they will look back at how similar issues were handled, and complainants & respondents will be able to bring it to their attention as such. It wouldn't make much sense for an arbitrator to never look at prior cases for insight into colleague's reasoning on similar matters.
        denton-scratch 5y ago
        Oh, OK; persuasive precedent. Thing is, aren't arbitration proceedings generally cloaked in secrecy? Most arbitration amounts to contract re-negotiation "by other means", no? So if the proceedings are secret, it's hard to see how they can be used as a precedent. Are such proceedings less secret than I thought?
wyldfire 5y ago
I wonder how things might change if he distributed something like Fedora but with malware. I hope in that case he'd not prevail in a legal battle over use of the name 'Fedora'.
- kayodelycaon 5y ago
  I think that would head towards criminal charges and Fedora would have some legitimate standing to file a lawsuit. Right now, they have nothing.
- DoctorOW 5y ago
  I'm not a lawyer but in addition to the other crimes this would be a trademark violation. If they're arguing the malware version is Fedora, it would constitute an attempt to "misleadingly to divert Internet users or to tarnish Complainant's FEDORA trademark." Since Fedora is trademarked it doesn't matter if it's marketed as Red Hat Fedora or some other Fedora.
- yjftsjthsd-h 5y ago
  Yes, if the situation was different then it might be different. Conveniently, it wasn't, so it isn't.

ineedasername 5y ago

I think it's fair to say that neither party had pure motives here. But a decision in favor of preserving what (in my view) amounts to a free speech issue seems like a win in this case. There are better ways to deal with assholes than setting what would have been a bad precedent for future cases if the ruling had gone the other way.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
denton-scratch 5y ago
An arbitration decision doesn't set a precedent.
- ineedasername 5y ago
  Every decision sets a precedent that can be referred to by future parties as examples of how a similar case was handled previously, and presumably the folks deciding these will want some minimal level of consistency between decisions. But sure, you're correct in the limited sense of that something like US Supreme Court stare decisis doctrine isn't built into the arbitration system, and so precedents are not binding or prima facie evidence that a current case should be decided the same way as a prior one.
  - denton-scratch 5y ago
    Well, I don't presume to know how US law works. In the UK, precedents are set by the decisions of the High Court (civil) or Crown Court (criminal), and by higher courts. Lower courts don't set precendents I believe - IANAL.
    - ineedasername 5y ago
      In the US there is a distinction of "binding" precedent and a "persuasive" precedent. A ruling that isn't binding can still be used in another case as evidence for a the validity of a line of reasoning, which can be persuasive, but the court is not obligated to give it the same standing as binding precedent. Even then, "binding" judicial precedent isn't binding in the strict sense. A court can still choose to disregard it, or hunt for a reason why it doesn't apply, but that gives the losing party much stronger grounds to get a case overturned on appeal. It's not a great look for a judge to have most of their decisions overturned though, so going against such precedents is usually not done without good reason, but it happens often enough to keep the appeals courts in business. The looser persuasive sense of precedent is what I meant: The arbitrators will not have to accord a prior decision any special status, but they will certainly want to have some level of consistency, and for tough decisions they will look back at how similar issues were handled, and complainants & respondents will be able to bring it to their attention as such. It wouldn't make much sense for an arbitrator to never look at prior cases for insight into colleague's reasoning on similar matters.
      - denton-scratch 5y ago
        Oh, OK; persuasive precedent. Thing is, aren't arbitration proceedings generally cloaked in secrecy? Most arbitration amounts to contract re-negotiation "by other means", no? So if the proceedings are secret, it's hard to see how they can be used as a precedent. Are such proceedings less secret than I thought?

wyldfire 5y ago

I wonder how things might change if he distributed something like Fedora but with malware. I hope in that case he'd not prevail in a legal battle over use of the name 'Fedora'.

kayodelycaon 5y ago
I think that would head towards criminal charges and Fedora would have some legitimate standing to file a lawsuit. Right now, they have nothing.
DoctorOW 5y ago
I'm not a lawyer but in addition to the other crimes this would be a trademark violation. If they're arguing the malware version is Fedora, it would constitute an attempt to "misleadingly to divert Internet users or to tarnish Complainant's FEDORA trademark." Since Fedora is trademarked it doesn't matter if it's marketed as Red Hat Fedora or some other Fedora.
yjftsjthsd-h 5y ago
Yes, if the situation was different then it might be different. Conveniently, it wasn't, so it isn't.