[lug] [getting OT]: Adobe GPL attack in Germany

[D. Stimits]

rm at mamma.varadinet.de wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Jul 05, 2001 at 01:28:35PM -0600, D. Stimits wrote:
> >
> >
> > I have an idea. Perhaps NATO countries should be required to ban any
> > lawyer or firm that uses the law, based on terrorism (since Germany is
> > part of NATO, this will require them to leave Germany upon filing such a
> > suit).
> 
> In all fairness, David:

It's Dan, not David.

Keep in mind I had a certain amount of sarcasm in the statement.

 calling some other contries consumer/trade law
> "terrorism" is a rather harsh thing to do, or? Even if i personally don't
> agree with some of my contries laws i try to think that goverment did put
> some thought into the law. At this point i would like to mention that the
> same corpus of laws until now prevented things like software patents.
> "Terrorism"? Hardly.
> I think we should be carefull not to attack a law if we really mean to
> attack a law firm that abuses the law. (am i allowed to mention that
> to some of us over here the amount of money involved as well as some of
> the cases in lawsuits against companies in the US are, err, astonishing ;-)

Terrorism takes many forms, not just the ones in the news each night.
But laws that allow anyone to file suit without asking the party
involved seems like a law aimed at intimidation. A better term might be
called "legal abuse of process". I don't care what country it comes
from, it's just wrong. Not everywhere in the world are there governments
called "democratic replublic", but sometimes an idea is valid no matter
where it comes from...it is a concept, not something of concrete
existence.

A long time ago, a guy named James Madison made a statement something
like this: In a pure democracy, it is possible for the cattle ranchers
to vote to run all the sheep ranchers out of town. Or better yet, vote
to make sheep ranching a hanging offense, and hang the sheep ranchers.
In pure democracy, you have tyranny by majority instead of by an
individual. To those ends, there are some issues that can't be voted on
by any normal means...at least here, you are not *supposed* to be able
to vote away certain rights...having the most votes is not enough in
some cases, you have to change the constitution itself before some
matters can even be voted on (like whether it is legal to kill all sheep
ranchers).

My own extension is to this is that in the long run, some of those legal
acts which aid extortion by legal means should be considered in the same
light as hanging all the sheep farmers. The fact that nobody dies from
such a lawsuit also means it isn't a high priority to challenge the law,
but it doesn't mean the law isn't a form of extortion. It has nothing to
do with Germany, it's an irritation about legally harassing someone who
was trying to do something good. And it isn't just about Adobe or
KIllustrator, it's about an irritation with all the stupid bullys of the
world that only consider *what* they can do, not whether it *should* be
done.

> 
> Oh, and i thought NATO was a military aliance, not an extendend american
> law enforcement agency ....
> (but this is getting _really_ o=OT, sorry Wade).

NATO was just a word. I guess I used it because often the NATO countries
agree on mutually beneficial laws. It's a natural extension to the
original sarcasm, when comparing the fight against brute force invasion
with the barbarians of stupid laws. Again, it has nothing to do with USA
or Germany or NATO, they are just convenient characters of comparison.

D. Stimits, stimits at idcomm.com

> 
>  Ralf
> _______________________________________________
> Web Page:  http://lug.boulder.co.us
> Mailing List: http://lists.lug.boulder.co.us/mailman/listinfo/lug