Untitled attachment

Notices where this attachment appears

1. Hallå Kitteh (clacke@social.heldscal.la)'s status on Friday, 10-Nov-2017 11:25:33 UTC Hallå Kitteh

   in reply to
   Here's the conclusion of the legal response.
   
   > AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
   > 1. Petitioner’s claim fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
   > 1. Petitioner’s claim is barred by the doctrine of unclean hands.
   > 2. Petitioner’s claim is barred by the doctrine of laches.
   > 3. Petitioner’s claim is barred by the doctrine of estoppel.
   > 4. Petitioner’s claim is barred by the doctrine of acquiescence.
   
   So as a layperson I figured out at least one of those, not bad. :-D
   
   http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=92066968&pty=CAN&eno=5
   
   To understand the whole document, which is mostly terse references to the claims made in the original petition, that petition is here:
   
   http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=92066968&pty=CAN&eno=1
   
   
   A little bit more on what the response means here:
   
   https://communityovercode.com/2017/11/legal-issues-software-freedom/
   
   Karl Fogel's excellent insights, as someone who knows the people involved:
   
   http://www.rants.org/2017/11/conservancy_sflc_dispute/
   
   Also, I noticed that the SFC's legal counsel in these proceedings is Pamela Chestek! She has been in Free Software law for quite some time, and you may remember her from talks such as https://social.heldscal.la/url/937238 . :-)