Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Sunday December 24 2017, @07:12AM   Printer-friendly
from the opinions-are-like-noses:-everybody-has-one dept.

El Reg reports

Linux kernel security biz Grsecurity's defamation lawsuit against open-source stalwart Bruce Perens has been dismissed, although the door remains open for a revised claim.

In June, Perens opined in a blog post that advised companies to avoid Grsecurity's Linux kernel security patches because it might expose them to claims of contributory infringement under the Linux kernel license, GPLv2.

Grsecurity then accused Perens of fearmongering to harm the firm's business, and sued him in July.

On [December 21], the judge hearing the case, San Francisco magistrate judge Laurel Beeler, granted [Perens'] motion to dismiss the complaint while also denying--for now--his effort to invoke California's anti-SLAPP law.

SLAPP stands for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, and describes legal complaints aimed at silencing public discourse and free speech. In 1992, California passed its anti-SLAPP statute to provide a defense against such legal bullying. Many other states and countries have similar laws.

In addition, Beeler denied Grsecurity's motion for summary judgment, which amounts to asking the judge to agree that the facts are so clear a ruling can be rendered without a trial.

"The court holds that Mr Perens's [sic] statements are opinions that are not actionable libel, dismisses the complaint with leave to amend, denies the anti-SLAPP motion without prejudice, and denies the motion for summary judgment", Judge Beeler ruled.

The page links to another article where Torvalds' opinion (similar in nature to Perens', but more colorful, as usual) was discussed in June.

Previous: Linux Kernel Hardeners Grsecurity Sue Open Source's Bruce Perens
Bruce Perens Warns of Potential Contributory Infringement Risk for Grsecurity Customers


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 25 2017, @07:39PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 25 2017, @07:39PM (#614130)

    In many jurisdictions, anti-SLAPP claims can only be a counterclaim and given the weak claims and the fact this was a FRCP 12(b) motion, denial of the anti-SLAPP isn't completely surprising, despite the fact that the MSJ by the plaintiff would tend to tip it more towards granting the anti-SLAPP.

    The real question right now is what GRSecurity does. The judge followed the standard procedure of giving the plaintiff another attempt at coming up with an actionable claim and basically outlined what they would have to be in order to have it survive. It also indirectly baited the plaintiff because if he really believes his claims, GRSecurity would try again or ask for a declaratory suit against all licensees. But, the judge made crystal clear that the former would run the great risk of anti-SLAPP sanctions. Furthermore, the latter is a great way for a business to commit suicide if they can't get all licensees on board.