3 ms·

(IANAL) FSF has to make those silly/scary claims in their suit because lawsuits much like negotiations will end up starting at extremes of price and will work t

(IANAL) FSF has to make those silly/scary claims in their suit because lawsuits much like negotiations will end up starting at extremes of price and will work their way to a generally 'reasonable' middle ground. Which may be something more like a bunch of money to FSF from Cisco. Also, we might get some good case law if this actually goes to trial.

aristus 18y ago
Not quite -- these are the demands they made before the lawsuit. The actual lawsuit demands are even more astounding -- including cease & desist and the turning over off all profits made from the alleged infringement.
- graemep 18y ago
  You think people should be allowed to keep the profits they made by the infringement? Then where is the deterrent to future infringement. As for the cease and desist: they want them to stop infringing - what do you expect? That they will say "we are suing but they are welcome to carry on doing what we are suing them for". I do not know what you find astounding. If these remedies were no available, you might just as well abolish copyright law as it currently exists.
  - aristus 18y ago
    Not at all, nor am I arguing Cisco's case. I think Cisco has stepped in a big cow pie. However, I think FSF is taking a big risk as well. The original demands, pre-lawsuit, were already rather severe and in the case of notification, silly. No one goes to that much effort about a product recall unless it is catching fire or something. I understand that FSF is trying to prove a point, and a valid one, but I also fear what will happen now that someone has finally called their bluff.
- brl 18y ago
  They are asking for profits because that is one of the legal remedies they are entitled to. It sounds pretty severe, like Cisco stands to lose a lot of money but I really doubt that the FSF would be awarded anything here. The defendant (Cisco) gets to deduct "the elements of profit attributable to factors other than the copyrighted work." (17 U.S.C. § 504 of the US Copyright Act). I imagine if you take the profit from a single revision of a firmware image and subtract everything that is not attributable to the Readline library (for example, named in the complaint) you can safely round that down to zero.

aristus 18y ago

Not quite -- these are the demands they made before the lawsuit. The actual lawsuit demands are even more astounding -- including cease & desist and the turning over off all profits made from the alleged infringement.

graemep 18y ago
You think people should be allowed to keep the profits they made by the infringement? Then where is the deterrent to future infringement. As for the cease and desist: they want them to stop infringing - what do you expect? That they will say "we are suing but they are welcome to carry on doing what we are suing them for". I do not know what you find astounding. If these remedies were no available, you might just as well abolish copyright law as it currently exists.
- aristus 18y ago
  Not at all, nor am I arguing Cisco's case. I think Cisco has stepped in a big cow pie. However, I think FSF is taking a big risk as well. The original demands, pre-lawsuit, were already rather severe and in the case of notification, silly. No one goes to that much effort about a product recall unless it is catching fire or something. I understand that FSF is trying to prove a point, and a valid one, but I also fear what will happen now that someone has finally called their bluff.
brl 18y ago
They are asking for profits because that is one of the legal remedies they are entitled to. It sounds pretty severe, like Cisco stands to lose a lot of money but I really doubt that the FSF would be awarded anything here. The defendant (Cisco) gets to deduct "the elements of profit attributable to factors other than the copyrighted work." (17 U.S.C. § 504 of the US Copyright Act). I imagine if you take the profit from a single revision of a firmware image and subtract everything that is not attributable to the Readline library (for example, named in the complaint) you can safely round that down to zero.