On 22/09/2007, Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Seems like a photographer rather than a lawyer, but he's definitely > right about this: *Intent* is crucial. Unless the plaintiffs can prove > that, Virgin is pretty safe. (At least in Australian courts, I'd wager: > If the truly frivolous action against Virgin U.S. is allowed to > continue there'll be a big out-of-court settlement. Which is the goal > of the whole exercise, really.)
Indeed and the International divide makes it oh so more attractive. > The really interesting part of the thing will be seeing if they can con > the judge into keeping Creative Commons and the U.S. arm of Virgin in > the suit, because that's where the money lies and the plaintiffs know > it. Can any of our Aussie list members tell us if the Australian legal > system make losers pay the costs of lawsuits, like in the UK? The > inclusion of Virgin's US division in this suit makes me suspect the > answer to that question... > :) Yes. -- Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://picasaweb.google.com/distudio/PESO http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
