[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Software Fictional Licensing Center (SFLC) Files Another Round of GP

From: Alexander Terekhov
Subject: Re: Software Fictional Licensing Center (SFLC) Files Another Round of GPL Violation Lawsuits
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2008 14:00:45 +0200

Tim Smith wrote:
> In article <>,
>  rjack <> wrote:
> > These settlements concern BusyBox source code that has never been
> > registered with the U.S. Copyright Office. The plaintiffs obviously have
> > no standing to file these frivolous suits:
> Wait a second.  What is the country of origin for the software?  The
> rules are different if its origin is a Berne country that is not the
> United States.

"This is an action by Erik Andersen, an individual, and Rob Landley, an
individual, (“Plaintiffs”) by and through their attorneys, the Software
Freedom Law Center, Inc., to recover damages arising from infringement
of their copyrights by <snip>, Inc. (“Defendant”) ... Specifically,
Defendant distributed and continues to distribute Plaintiffs’
copyrighted BusyBox software without Plaintiffs’ permission ... Erik
Andersen is a private individual with a residence in Springville, Utah.
Rob Landley is a private individual with a residence in Austin, Texas. "

All SFLC's frivolous suits are about US copyrights and only US

"Plaintiffs’ copyrights are unique and valuable property whose market
value is impossible to assess"

(See complaints filed by Software Fictional Licensing Center.)


Here's more from SFLC's "lawyers": 

"You do not need to register to enforce your copyright. " 

And this is from the United states Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit where SFLC resides and likes to file their idiotic complaints
(just to dismiss voluntary and even with prejudice against own clients
shortly after filing initial complaint): 

"It provides that "no action for infringement of the copyright in 
any United States work shall be instituted until pre-registration 
or registration of the copyright claim has been made in 
accordance with this title." 17 U.S.C. sec. 411(a); see also 17 
U.S.C. sec. 501.1 Whether this requirement is jurisdictional is 
not up for debate in this Circuit. On two recent occasions, we 
have squarely held that it is."; In re Literary Works in 
Electronic Databases Copyright Litigation; Nos. 05-5943-cv(L), 
06-0223-cv(CON)(2d Cir. Nov. 29, 2007).
(Second Circuit Vacates Settlement...) 


(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards
too, whereas GNU cannot.)

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]