[Top][All Lists]

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


From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: SFLC is SOL
Date: Tue, 04 May 2010 16:07:16 -0000
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1.92 (gnu/linux)

RJack <> writes:

> The SFLC has finally bought itself a shit-load of trouble.

Because defendents write up a defense?  That's not really that

> 13. Best Buy requests a jury trial on all issues triable of right by a
> jury.

Juries don't interpret the law but decide on questions of fact finding.
There is not much leeway for finding here as long as plaintiffs did not
ask for punishment of willful violation, but for compliance.

But Best Buy does not state being in compliance, but rather not being
affected by BusyBox copyrights.

> WHEREFORE, Defendant/Counterclaimant Best Buy prays for judgment in its
> favor against Plaintiffs/Counterclaimants as follows:
> 1. Dismissing Plaintiffs’ cause of action with prejudice and on the merits;
> 2. Declaring that Best Buy has not infringed the alleged copyrights in
> BusyBox;
> 3. Awarding Best Buy its costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees,
> incurred in connection with this matter; and
> 4. Awarding such other relief as this Court deems just and equitable.
> . . .
> This means that the SFLC cannot file a vouluntary dismissal without
> the permission of Best Buy Inc.

There is no such thing as "filing an unvoluntary dismissal".  And of
course, once Best Buy agrees to settle, both parties will file a joint
request for dismissal because of having agreed on settlement terms.

You'll be hollering about "voluntary dismissals" on the side of the SFLC
and foaming at your mouth.  But that's the way this stuff works.

David Kastrup

reply via email to

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