> Joe Sewell sez:
> + At 3:17 PM 12/16/94 -0500, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> +>If Walnut Creek won't honor copyrights -- won't even comply with the bleedin'
> +>*law* -- then what reason do we have to believe that they will honor a
> +>header of this kind?
> +
> +In short, you and many others on this list have already decided Walnut
> +Creek is in the wrong, and nobody -- not even those with legal knowledge --
> +are right when they disagree with you.
>
> I agree fully with Eric; in fact, I made clear to Walnut Creek my
> displeasure with their cavalier attitude a full year ago, when this
> same issue arose. As the sole author of two law-related FAQs (Legal
> Research FAQ and Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances FAQ), and as a
> practicing attorney admitted in two states and two federal district
> courts, would I qualify as one of "those with legal knowledge"?
And, of course, I made similar comments earlier, I'm an attorney admitted
in one state and one federal district (but my state's the size of both of
yours put together, Mark! <g>) and IP law is my specialty.
So far, every opinion from someone trained in law has been that Wlanut
Creek is infringing. What we haven't heard is an opinion from anyone with
legal knowledge who believes that Walnut Creek is not infringing.
-- Terry Carroll | Santa Clara, CA | Quayle/Bono in '96. carrollt@netcom.com |
[
Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive |
Search Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997
]
© Copyright The Landfield Group, 1997
All rights reserved