[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption

From: Hyman Rosen
Subject: Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption
Date: Tue, 04 May 2010 16:08:09 -0000
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv: Gecko/20091204 Thunderbird/3.0

On 3/9/2010 5:51 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
The CAFC vacated, not reversed. Accordingly, on remand, the district
court determined that the injunction shall be denied on other grounds as

The District Court said:
    2. Copyright Damages Are Available to Plaintiff.
    Although it is undisputed that Plaintiff distributed the copied
    work on the Internet at no cost, there is also evidence in the
    record attributing a monetary value for the actual work performed
    by the contributors to the JMRI project. (See Declaration of
    Victoria K. Hall in support of opposition, Ex. F (expert report
    of Michael A. Einhorn).)2 Because there are facts in the record
    which may establish a monetary damages figure, the Court finds
    Plaintiff has made a showing sufficient to establish the existence
    of a dispute of fact regarding the monetary value of Plaintiff’s
    work for purposes of his copyright claim. Accordingly, Defendants’
    motion for summary judgment on this basis is denied.
    2. Copyright Infringement Claim.
    To prevail on his claim for copyright infringement, Plaintiff must
    show he owns a valid copyright and that Defendants reproduced
    protected elements of the copyrighted work. See Feist, 499 U.S. at
    361. The uncontroverted evidence establishes that Plaintiff is the
    owner of the decoder definition files which are the subject of the
    copyright infringement claim. (Declaration of Robert Jacobsen in
    support of motion, Ex. B.) The evidence summarized by this Court
    with reference to Defendants’ motion establishes the originality,
    and therefore, the copyrightability, of the subject work. Again, the
    Court is unpersuaded that Plaintiff cannot prove damages. For the
    same reasons discussed supra, the copied files remain in the
    Defendants’ product as distributed and therefore constitute a basis
    for a claim for copyright infringement. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS
    Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on his copyright cause of
    action as to liability, but not as to damages.

reply via email to

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