Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

[RJack]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> On 4/8/2010 5:57 PM, RJack wrote:
> > "BusyBox, v.0.60.3" is the version of BusyBox registered with the 
> > Copyright Office by the plaintiff
>
> According to the complaint 
> <http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2009/busybox-complaint-2009-12-14.pdf>
>
>
> this is a version registered by the plaintiff. The complaint does not
>  say that it is the only version so registered.
>
> > and is the only copyrighted work claimed in the lawsuit.
>
> No, that is plainly false, easily seen to be so by reading the 
> complaint. The copyrighted work which the plaintiffs claim is being 
> infringed is BusyBox, not nay particular version of it. This is 
> correct, since the plaintiffs hold copyright to all versions of 
> BusyBox from the one in which they first made modifications.
>
> > The claim-processing requirements of 17 USC sec 411 (no longer 
> > jurisdictional after Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick, Case No. 
> > 08-103) require the alleged infringed work be registered with 
> > specificity.
>
> The plaintiffs can register any later version as becomes necessary 
> and amend the complaint. The defendants might then not be liable for
>  statutory infringement on that version, but could be enjoined from 
> copying and distributing it further.
>
> > It is the job of the trier of fact to compare the *registered* work
> >  with the alleged infringing copy for "substantial similarity". In
> >  the instant suit, no binary has been *registered* for comparison 
> > with the alleged infringing binary. I'll leave it to you to explain
> >  how a jury would compare a work that you *refuse* to identify with
> >  *specificity* with some *alleged* infringing work.
>
> No, this is false. You really are ignorant in this subject. 
> <http://ipmall.info/hosted_resources/CopyrightCompendium/chapter_0300.asp>
>  321.03 Relationship between source code and object code. The 
> Copyright Office considers source code and object code as two 
> representations of the same computer program. For registration 
> purposes, the claim is in the computer program rather than in any 
> particular representation of the program. Thus separate registrations
>  are not appropriate for the source code and object code 
> representations of the same computer program. However, where a work 
> in source code is registered in unpublished form, and the published 
> version of the same work is submitted for registration in object code
>  form, registration will be made.

You are begging the question. How do you propose that a trier of fact
compared an *unspecified* work that you refuse to identify with an
*alleged* infringing copy? What's for the jury members to compare?

Remember the Scheduling Order?

-----------------------------------------------------------
"Shira A. Scheindlin U.S.D.J.
...
2. A concise statement of the issues as they then appear;

Pending results of Defendants' investigations, Defendants
intend to show that the Plaintiff's have no damages, that
the Defendants did nothing actionable under copyright law, that
any alleged copying was not willful, that Plaintiffs are not
the proper parties, that the copyright held by Mr. Andersen
is not applicable, and that, since being put on notice of
the purported requirements of the general public license,
Defendants have endeavored to come into compliance with what
can only be described as a 'moving target'."

----------------------------------------------------------

"[w]hat can only be described as a 'moving target'."
"[w]hat can only be described as a 'moving target'."
"[w]hat can only be described as a 'moving target'."
"[w]hat can only be described as a 'moving target'."
"[w]hat can only be described as a 'moving target'."

ROFL ROFL ROFL

Let the Plaintiffs continue to refuse to identify the *specific* work
that was *allegedly* infringed and see where it gets you with the court.
Stop the Bullshit Hyman. Let the truth shine through. "BusyBox,
v.0.60.3" is the version of BusyBox registered with the
Copyright Office by the plaintiff and is the only copyrighted work
claimed in the lawsuit.

Sincerely,
RJack :)