gnu-misc-discuss
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: The great BusyBox fraud continues


From: RJack
Subject: Re: The great BusyBox fraud continues
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 15:57:25 -0000
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.7) Gecko/20100713 Thunderbird/3.1.1

On 8/3/2010 6:24 PM, RJack wrote:

The District court must dismiss the SOFTWARE FREEDOM CONSERVANCY, INC.
from the Best Buy litigation:

"The Copyright Act authorizes only two types of claimants to sue
for copyright infringement: (1) owners of copyrights, and (2) persons
who have been granted exclusive licenses by owners of copyrights.[Note 3]

[Note 3] ... We do not believe that the Copyright Act permits holders of
rights under copyrights to choose third parties to bring suits on their
behalf. While F.R.Civ.P. 17(a) ordinarily permits the real party in
interest to ratify a suit brought by another party, see Urrutia Aviation
Enterprises v. B.B. Burson & Associates, Inc., 406 F.2d 769, 770 (5th
Cir.1969); Clarkson Co. Ltd. v. Rockwell Int'l Corp., 441 F.Supp. 792
(N.D.Calif.1977), the Copyright Law is quite specific in stating that
only the "owner of an exclusive right under a copyright" may bring suit.
17 U.S.C. Sec. 501(b) (Supp. IV 1980)."; Eden Toys Inc v. Florelee
Undergarment Co Inc, 697 F.2d 27 (2nd Cir 1983).

I think it may have slipped Erik Andersen's mind that the SFLC can
represent him pro bone (for free) in the Best Buy litigation but
if the suit fails Erik is going to personally be on the hook for
nine defendants' attorney fees. I wonder if the SFLC will represent
him in bankruptcy court.

Sincerely,
RJack :)


reply via email to

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