[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Blowhard Bradley Kuhn and his fraud

From: RJack
Subject: Re: Blowhard Bradley Kuhn and his fraud
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 15:59:11 -0000
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv: Gecko/20100802 Thunderbird/3.1.2

And the lies just keep on comin':

Conservancy Receives Default Judgment For BusyBox GPL Enforcement

Software Freedom Conservancy received a default judgment on 27 July 2010
against Westinghouse (PDF) in Conservancy's ongoing lawsuit against many
GPL violators of BusyBox's copyrights.


The Software Freedom Conservancy doesn't own any copyrights in BusyBox
which deprives the court of subject matter jurisdiction over any
Software Freedom Conservancy legal claims for infringement. Not only
that -- Second Federal Circuit prevailing law states there are
*no* "copyright enforcement agents":

"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)."

See also:

"Finally, the Copyright Act does not permit copyright holders to choose
third parties to bring suits on their behalf. See Eden Toys, Inc. v.
Florelee Undergarment Co., 697 F.2d 27, 32 n. 3 (2d Cir.1982).;  ABKCO
MUSIC, INC v. HARRISONGS MUSIC, LTD, 944 f2d 971 (2nd Cir. 1992)."

Do GNUtians think this kind of propaganda garbage by Bradley Kuhn
and the Software Freedom Conservancy won't eventually be exposed?

RJack :)

reply via email to

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