One Comment

  1. Without commenting on the merits or philosophy behind the GPL enforcement action, I find FSF’s disclosure of settlement discussion details in its complaint (see enumerated paragraphs 30 through 42) violative of FRE 408, especially the underlying public policy for Rule 408. For example, in paragraph 30 of the Complaint, FSF effectively claims that the defendant admitted liability with regard to its model WIP300 firmware code. In the context of the next paragraph (as well as several other subsequent paragraphs), it would seem likely that if any such admission took place, it was within the context of some sort of a settlement discussion.

    If the court allows this complaint to stand as-is, without striking the sections that probably violate Rule 408, then that could have a chilling effect on the willingness for other parties within the sights of FSF to engage in early settlement negotiations. Why bother, if you know that anything you say in such negotiations can then be used to form the basis of a civil complaint against you? Hopefully, there will be a Defendant’s 12(f) Motion to Strike, or the Court will recognize the impropriety of FSF’s disclosure of not only settlement-discussion details, but the mere existence of such discussions, and strike the content on the Court’s own accord.

Comments are closed.

Did you enjoy this post? Then please share it with your friends and colleagues: