On 1/26/06, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Have you never heard of the concept of a SLAPP suit?
I've heard mention of the concept. Have you heard of 425.16? (It's visible at http://www.casp.net/cal425.html) Ok, I'm assuming that free software is in the public interest, but I don't think that's a difficult legal argument. And, yes, I'm aware that that's the law in california and that venu is something different, but I don't think a judge is going to want to violate that law even if the plantiff is trying to claim that it is irrelevant to the defendant. > Frankly, I find it amazing that even when such clauses are advanced by a > corporation like Adobe, who has been a veritable *poster child* for > corporate hostility to Free Software and the concept of a liberal IP regime, > there are still people who don't get that this additional exposure is a > loaded gun. I like the analogy presented in one of the web articles I read on choice of venue -- legally it's more like a stray bullet than an aimed shot. I still see this more as an economic cost containment issue than a legal move, and so far the arguments about "tentacles of evil" haven't contained enough specifics to change my mind on that. > If as Nathanael points out the clause were rewritten to be strictly > defensive, I would have no problem with it; but that's definitely not what > we have here today. Ok. I don't care about this distinction but I accept that you do. Thanks, -- Raul
