Re: Samsung's answer to SFLC gang

[Alexander Terekhov]

>From pacer... interesting bits from Samsung's answer :

"Defendant denies that Mr. Anderson is the author or developer of the
BusyBox computer program, and the owner of the copyright in that
computer program. "

"FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Failure to State a Claim)

36. As a separate and distinct First Affirmative Defense to the
Complaint and each claim for relief alleged therein, Defendant alleges
that the Complaint and each of said claims for relief fail to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted.

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Statute of Limitations)

37. As a further, separate and distinct Second Affirmative Defense to
the Complaint and each claim for relief alleged therein, Defendant
alleges that Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by applicable statutes of
limitations including, but not limited to, 28 U.S.C. § 1658 and 17
U.S.C. § 507(b).

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Improper Joinder)

38. As a further, separate and distinct Third Affirmative Defense to the
Complaint and each claim for relief alleged therein, Defendant alleges
that the Complaint improperly joins different defendants and/or
plaintiffs and/or fails to join necessary defendants and/or plaintiffs
including, but not limited to, all the co-authors of the alleged
copyrighted materials.

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Laches)

39. As a further, separate and distinct Fourth Affirmative Defense to
the Complaint and each claim for relief alleged therein, Defendant
alleges that Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the doctrine of laches.

FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Unclean Hands)

40. As a further, separate and distinct Fifth Affirmative Defense to the
Complaint and each claim for relief alleged therein, Defendant alleges
that Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the doctrine of unclean hands. 

SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Estoppel)

41. As a further, separate and distinct Sixth Affirmative Defense to the
Complaint and each claim for relief alleged therein, Defendant alleges
that Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the doctrine of estoppel.

SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(No Copyright Interest)

42. As a further, separate and distinct Seventh Affirmative Defense to
the Complaint and each claim for relief alleged therein, Defendant
alleges that Plaintiffs do not have sufficient rights in the alleged
copyrighted materials to claim ownership in any copyright therein.

EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Fair Use)

43. As a further, separate and distinct Eighth Affirmative Defense to
the Complaint and each claim for relief alleged therein, Defendant
alleges that Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the doctrine of fair use.

NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Misuse)

44. As a further, separate and distinct Ninth Affirmative Defense to the
Complaint and each claim for relief alleged therein, Defendant alleges
that Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the doctrine of copyright misuse.
Defendants are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that
Plaintiffs’ claims are barred because Plaintiffs have used the alleged
copyrights at issue in this case to engage in anticompetitive behavior
under United States law.

TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Innocent Infringement)

45. As a further, separate and distinct Tenth Affirmative Defense to the
Complaint and each claim for relief alleged therein, Defendant alleges
that, to the extent Defendant has infringed any of Plaintiffs’
copyrights such infringement was innocent and unintentional.

ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(De Minimis Use)

46. As a further, separate and distinct Eleventh Affirmative Defense to
the Complaint and each claim for relief alleged therein, Defendant
alleges that any alleged copyright infringement was only de minimis and,
therefore, not actionable.

TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Licensed Use)

47. As a separate and distinct Twelfth Affirmative Defense and each
claim for relief alleged therein, Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs’
claim for copyright infringement is barred under at least the provisions
of 17 U.S.C. § 109(a), as Defendant was licensed and any copies alleged
to be infringing were, therefore, lawfully made.

THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Improper Venue)

48. As a further, separate and distinct Thirteenth Affirmative Defense
to the Complaint and each claim for relief alleged therein, Defendant
alleges that venue for this matter is improper.

FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Public Domain)

49. As a further, separate and distinct Fourteenth Affirmative Defense
to the Complaint and each claim for relief alleged therein, Defendant
alleges that the alleged copyrighted materials are now, and have been
during all relevant times, within the public domain.

FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Lack of Standing)

50. As a further, separate and distinct Fifteenth Affirmative Defense to
the Complaint and each claim for relief alleged therein, Defendant
alleges that Plaintiffs lack standing to sue Defendant for copyright
infringement.

SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Failure to Register Copyright)

51. As a further, separate and distinct Sixteenth Affirmative Defense to
the Complaint and each claim for relief alleged therein, Defendant
alleges that Plaintiffs have failed to register the alleged copyrighted
materials and, therefore, are precluded from bringing a claim for
copyright infringement pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 411.

SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Failure to Timely Register Copyright)

52. As a further, separate and distinct Seventeenth Affirmative Defense
to the Complaint and each claim for relief alleged therein, Defendant
alleges that Plaintiffs have failed to timely register the alleged
copyrighted materials and, therefore, are precluded from bringing a
claim for statutory damages and attorneys’ fees pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §
412.

EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(No Damages)

53. As a further, separate and distinct Eighteenth Affirmative Defense
to the Complaint and each claim for relief alleged therein, Defendant
alleges that Plaintiffs have not incurred any damages.

NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Consent)

54. As a further, separate and distinct Nineteenth Affirmative Defense
to the Complaint and each claim for relief alleged therein, Defendant
alleges that one or more of the owners of the alleged copyrighted
materials have consented to its use by Defendant.

TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Waiver)

55. As a further, separate and distinct Twentieth Affirmative Defense to
the Complaint and each claim for relief alleged therein, Defendant
alleges that the owners of the alleged copyrighted materials have waived
any right to bring any claim for infringement of the alleged copyrighted
materials.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Defendant prays for the following relief:

1. That Plaintiffs take nothing by their Complaint;
2. That Defendant be dismissed from this action with prejudice;
3. For its costs of suit incurred herein;
4. For its attorney fees incurred herein; and
5. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and
proper.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b)(1), Defendant demands
trial by jury on all issues so triable. 

DATED: April 5, 2010.
BULLIVANT HOUSER BAILEY PC
By s/ Michael M. Ratoza
Michael M. Ratoza, admitted pro hac vice
BULLIVANT HOUSER BAILEY PC
300 Pioneer Tower, 888 SW Fifth Avenue
Portland, Oregon 97204
Telephone: 503.228.6351
Facsimile: 503.295.0915
E-mail: michael.ratoza@bullivant.com

Attorneys for Defendant SAMSUNG
ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. "

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the
originality standards required by copyright law."

Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com> The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

P.P.S. "Of course correlation implies causation! Without this 
fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress."

Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com> The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

--
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.)