[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement
Date: Tue, 04 May 2010 16:13:12 -0000
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1.92 (gnu/linux)

RJack <> writes:

> Hyman Rosen wrote:
>> On 4/8/2010 6:44 PM, RJack wrote:
>>> 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?
>> Gathering such evidence will happen during discovery. Depositions
>> will be taken in order to determine the provenance of the software
>> being distributed by the defendants, plaintiffs will offer forensic
>> evidence based on analysis of the distributed binaries, and then the
>> plaintiffs will demonstrate that the software is being copied and
>> distributed in violation of its license.
> The claim processing rules dictated by 17 USC sec. 411(a) require the
> specific work be identified through registration with the Copyright
> Office.

And enough material from the specific work identified through
registration can be found in the distributed software, even though it is
a different version.  So copyrightable material has been identified, and
a license is needed for redistribution.

> Stop making up nonsense Hyman.
> I'll bet the farm that no significant discovery will *ever* occur.

And every single defendant will for some entirely unrelated reason come
into compliance without actually needing to do so, out of some whim that
has nothing to do with the case.

Your usual fairy tale when a GPL case succeeds.

> A defendant's F.R.C.P. Rule 12 Motion to Dismiss will be granted and
> this charade of a lawsuit along with the GPL will end soon. The only
> hope for the SFLC is to somehow beg all the defendants for a
> stipulated voluntary dismissal. There is no way Best Buy Inc. will
> stipulate to dismiss without their counterclaim for a declaratory
> judgement being granted. The SFLC has finally had their bluff called
> by several defendants.

Yes, the same fairy tale as before.  They'll crawl back into their hole
and by some utterly unrelated und incomprehensible act, GPLed sources
will be made available by defendants.

Like it happened every time so far.

David Kastrup

reply via email to

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