Re: SFLC is SOL

[RJack]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> On 3/22/2010 3:56 PM, RJack wrote:
> > Just for once Hyman, try to read the Complaint. Andersen claims 
> > (falsely) that he owns BusyBox, v.0.60.3 -- that's exactly what he
> >  re4gistered with the Copyright Office. His claim to ownership of 
> > BusyBox, v.0.60.3 is the *only* thing that gives the court 
> > jurisdiction to hear infringement claims.
>
> As a registered copyright holder of v.0.60.3 he is also a copyright 
> holder of all derivative works based on v.0.60.3. If a defendant 
> argues that they are copying and distributing a later version, the 
> plaintiff will simply register that one with the copyright office. 
> Defendant will then likely not be liable for statutory infringement 
> on that version, since it was not registered when the infringement 
> took place, but they will be enjoined from continuing to copy and 
> distribute it.
>
> And actually, that's likely to have a sensitive dependence on the 
> judge, because some judges may decide that given the many derivative 
> works created through the routine process of computer programming, 
> having one version registered is enough.
>
> > In the instant case Erik Andersen wasn't even the original author 
> > of BusyBox v.0.60.3.
>
> There is no need to be an original author to hold copyright in a 
> work.

Baloney. You must be either an original owner or obtain a transfer
of ownership for computer code.

> He is the author of a derivative work of the original BusyBox.

Let Erik Andersen register what he *does* own -- not what he *doesn't* own.

There are multiple original authors in the BusyBox v.0.60.3 program --
many are from the old BSD4.4-lite days. It is easily understood why
the defendants have stated that the plaintiff's claims are a "moving
target". Erik Andersen can't or won't identify what specific code he has
authored and registered.

Sincerely,
RJack :)