Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record

[Alexander Terekhov]

Rahul Dhesi wrote:
> 
> Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com> writes:
> 
> >Rahul Dhesi wrote:
> >> Your essential argument is that although they are hiding the actual
> >> settlement, they are not hiding anything within it.
> 
> >No. They are hiding the exact monetary amounts involved,
> >for example, and there may be other things as well. We
> >know only what both sides have agreed should be made
> >public. One of those things is that the defendants have
> >agreed to comply with the GPL, which is the goal of the
> >SFLC.
> 
> So we agree that they have something to hide. And you seem to be
> contradicting yourself, sometimes arguing they have nothing to hide,
> sometimes conceding that they do.
> 
> There may be good reasons to hide the monetary amount.  If it's large
> (e.g., SFLC gets $10 million), it makes the defendant look bad (akin to
> admitting wrong-doing) and may also make the SFLC look bad (greedy). If
> it's small (e.g., SFLC gets $50), if makes the SFLC look bad (it means
> the defendant essentially got away with wrong-doing and lost nothing
> when caught.

You seem to overlook the case of monetary amount being negative to
Busybox. I mean negative as in 

"you [Busybox] don't have to pay our [Supermicro] attorneys' fees in the
amount of $... except mandatory nominal damages in the amount of $1".

Why not?

That is a valid consideration to compensate Busybox developers to
settle.

http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2007/01/section-411a-bites-plaintiff-twice.html
 

-----
The builder again moved to dismiss; the court granted the motion,
holding that the “relevant jurisdictional fact, which cannot be changed
by amending the complaint, is that registration of the copyright had not
been made” when the complaint was originally filed. Plaintiff then
re-filed its complaint; the builder moved to dismissal under FRCP 41(a).
The court denied the motion, but sua sponte ordered plaintiff to pay
attorney’s fees in connection with the prior two dismissals, and to
really show its pique stayed the proceedings until the fees were paid
up.

That was just the beginning of the mess, though, as years of litigation
over motions for reconsideration, summary judgment, and appeal to the
Seventh Circuit occurred. Ultimately, another $75,000 in fees were
awarded in connection with the motion for summary judgment and the
appeal. One cannot but wonder whether the final award was influenced by
the 411(a) fiasco. 
-----

http://www.techlawjournal.com/courts/lds/19991112mem.htm 

------- 
Registration of copyright in the work that is allegedly infringed is a
jurisdictional requirement. 17 U.S.C. § 411. Techniques, Inc. v. Rohn,
592 F.Supp. 1195, 1197; 225 U.S.P.Q. 741 (S.D.N.Y. 1984)("Pursuant to 17
U.S.C. § 411(a) as well as its predecessor, § 13, it has been held
repeatedly that ownership of a copyright registration is a
jurisidictional prerequisite to an action for infringement. . . . A
complaint which fails to plead compliance with § 411(a) is defective and
subject to dismissal."); Grundberg v. The Upjohn Company, 137 F.R.D.
372, 382; 19 U.S.P.Q. 1590 (D. Ut. 1991). Lacking even an allegation of
registration of copyright ... this Court is without subject matter
jurisdiction. 
------- 

regards,
alexander.

-- 
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm 
(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.)