jesus christ. you put yourself in a 2 ton metal box and fly around at 60mph and then have the stones to bring up the risk/benefit tradeoff of public engineering? cellphones are not the problem. metal is.
I listened to the whole hearing. The only takeaway is both lawyers are bumbling idiots, and neither actually defends their points. Somehow, all three judges are quite well spoken and down-to-earth... couldn't believe it.
For all those who are consfused on the issue, because I was, the issue the defendent is trying to defend is that there is an economic interest for the plaintiff (because copyright law doesn't cover moral/philisophical issues). The issue the defendent was trying to defend was that the open source licence (presumably GNU... they never say) doesn't hold because the terms are "covenants", not "conditions" because the plaintiff SOMEHOW (though never stated properly) doesn't reserve any rights...
The defendent's lawyer FINALLY answers their question at the very end with this (and there are no typos in my transcript)...
"...if you look under california law a condition is 'an event not certain to occur which mutscht occur uhh before performance under the contract becomes due' now under that definition, these are not conditions".... WOW.
Slashdot Mirror
jesus christ. you put yourself in a 2 ton metal box and fly around at 60mph and then have the stones to bring up the risk/benefit tradeoff of public engineering? cellphones are not the problem. metal is.
I listened to the whole hearing. The only takeaway is both lawyers are bumbling idiots, and neither actually defends their points. Somehow, all three judges are quite well spoken and down-to-earth... couldn't believe it.
For all those who are consfused on the issue, because I was, the issue the defendent is trying to defend is that there is an economic interest for the plaintiff (because copyright law doesn't cover moral/philisophical issues). The issue the defendent was trying to defend was that the open source licence (presumably GNU... they never say) doesn't hold because the terms are "covenants", not "conditions" because the plaintiff SOMEHOW (though never stated properly) doesn't reserve any rights...
The defendent's lawyer FINALLY answers their question at the very end with this (and there are no typos in my transcript)... "...if you look under california law a condition is 'an event not certain to occur which mutscht occur uhh before performance under the contract becomes due' now under that definition, these are not conditions".... WOW.