Our lawsuit against ChessBase

Post by shadilay » Wed, Jul 21, 2021, 8:27 AM UTC

gog wrote: post #209

daxcurzon wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is how it works in Czech Republic. Two brothers defrauded the government by forging signatures of the owners and notaries for the transfer of property deeds and took several hundred thousand Euros worth of land from various people. My friend's family has been in court for 10 years trying to get it back. The brothers mortgaged the properties to pay for litigation. The real shit sandwich is that one brother died,…

If they win, most of the lawyer fees will be paid by the losing party.

Post by ansible » Wed, Jul 21, 2021, 9:11 AM UTC

cycomanic wrote: post #203

daxcurzon wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They took out a mortgage after being served but before they ever got in a court room. The law is so slow here that it could've taken years just to settle that issue. Probably easier to address post victory.

Isn't it in the duty of care of the bank to make sure that the property they give a mortgage on is actually owned by the mortgagee? I would assume that you should get the land and the bank can then sue the brothers to get their money back. Why should the mortgage be transfered to the original owners, they never agreed to it.

Post by rkangel » Wed, Jul 21, 2021, 9:33 AM UTC

andi999 wrote: post #214

remus wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Im amazed they found a bank who would provide a mortgage against a property that was part of a legal dispute over ownership.

How would a bank know?

Post by andi999 » Wed, Jul 21, 2021, 9:49 AM UTC

rkangel wrote: post #215

andi999 wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would a bank know?

Legal due diligence? When I bought a house, all sorts of legal checks were required before I was allowed a mortgage. That seems like it would be standard practice.

Post by Fraaaank » Wed, Jul 21, 2021, 10:01 AM UTC

joshuaissac wrote: post #65

admax88q wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Forking the code doesn't fork the copyright ownership. Stockfish still owns the code under their copyright regardless of whether it lives in their repository or in some fork of their codebase. A forked project doesn't have the right to grant people licenses to code which they don't own.

Licences can give the right to sublicense under the same terms. But the GPL does not, and each licensor gets the licence directly from the copyright holder.