As for the rest of your reply, thank you. I take it as a very long winded way of saying ....
"if, I, BB, am called to give evidence in person, which I almost certainly will be if my technical report is to be challenged, then I reserve the right to make application to the court, in whatever jurisdiction it happens to be, for compensation in the event that the case is won by my side".
Which would effectively appear to place you into a "share of the spoils" situation, or perhaps an "addition to the spoils" situation. Say what you want about bias, but for me that is quite a bias.
BB+ wrote:Not sure what the referent "open transparency democracy" is. In any event, democracies are also just as famous for trampling minority rights. My recollection is that Aristotle calls them the worst of sociopolitical systems (yet then goes on to describe many in detail, often speaking of their positive aspects). I also might quote your words on the Rybka Forum (aimed at FL): If, as open source programmer, you wish to assert rights or copyrights, go to law, otherwise shut up. It seems he has chosen to do the former (and indeed avoids forums, "democratic" or otherwise, as far as I can tell).Chris Whittington wrote:We have an open transparent democracy yet you prefer to go running to undemocratic judgemental places to get closure. Revealing.
I myself am personally a bit closer to a "commercial" programmer (yes, Magma is licensed at something like $1500 for 3 years, though I also produce other code and maths research), and indeed I had a bitter argument with a colleague 6 years ago when he tried to get me to release some maths code under the GPL [in fact, I spent 20-30 hours re-writing it, so that it would not be so encumbered].
These seems to be a mischaracterisation of Polish courts. For instance, Polish lawyers are not allowed (by the ethics of the bar) to work exclusively [or even primarily, it seems] on a contingency basis. Legal costs therein are payable by the loser, but fall under a fixed scale: The legal costs are limited to the fees of one attorney which are calculated on the basis of the value of the claim according to the scale provided for in the law (anecdotes indicate this typically does not cover the totality of the lawyer's share in practise). There is no provision for additional "expert costs" to the best of my knowledge, although if the court appoints an "expert", then the loser must pay the court costs involved in that. At any rate, it seems reasonable for the FSF to handle the "probative" (and thus less technical) aspects of the copying via their own (lackey) "experts", particularly as this will allow them to justify the existence of such.Chris Whittington wrote:If this goes to court though, in Poland you seem to prefer since the monies are allegedly better there, you'll have the opportunity, if Vas loses, to ask the court to claim your expert witness costs/expenses/profit element to be paid to you direct. Which appears to put you into a no win no fee situation.
A bit strange, then, that I should be "terrorising" persons into a settlement as previously suggested? Your argument seems to grasp in various directions, rather than following a consistent pattern.Chris Whittington wrote:Vested interest in not only guilt, but guilt via court process rather than compromise.
That was a joke at Ed! Everyone knows that academics are lucky to make half that.Chris Whittington wrote:100 USD per hour or so you keep trumpeting.I talked about the "conflict of interest" elsewhere. I get nada (as in zip, zilch-o) in any event. The only exception might be if I were asked to testify in person.
I affirm the above two "Perhaps" statements, with the caveat just mentioned. [But this hardly is proof of being "unbiased", as you surely know, and indeed IIRC you concluded no one could truly be labelled such]. E.g., my plans to visit Tilburg this November are out-of-pocket (it may not seem to you that Banff is close to Tilburg, but then, you aren't in Sydney to startPerhaps you could take this opportunity to clear any misunderstanding and state unequivocably that you will decline any form of compensation from whatever source and that your entire contribution, including expenses, has been and will be funded from your own pocket without any attempt by you to recover anything?
Perhaps you could also reassure us that there is no research angle to any of this and you have not and will not use this process and/or its results in any academic furtherences.
Just trying to help you establish yourself as totally unbiased and quite altruistic .....-- and I'll catch my family up for Thanksgiving on the way back, so the cost is partially offset by other travel), the only academic connection is that I offered to visit the number theory group in Leiden. [Incidentally, I once had a debate with a colleague whether we could claim our own frequent-flyer miles when being re-imbursed by the university -- I argued in the negative].
. A better way is simply to search by person, and then thumb through recent posts. I'm not sure I used the word "notes" in that post in any event (it seems that "listing" was the word choice).
). Better to look at Rick Fadden's disassembly (the link is in 6.3), if you want more details.