[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: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 10:24:15 -0500
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv: Gecko/20101027 Thunderbird/3.1.6

On 11/30/2010 10:03 AM, Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 11/30/2010 2:46 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
First ever official court denials against Bradley Kuhn

Pretty weak sauce: To the extent Plaintiffs are arguing that CMA or
WD is guilty of copyright infringement through its own use of the
Infringing Assets, Plaintiffs may amend the Complaint to plead facts
specific to CMA or WD's alleged infringing activity. ... For the
foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs' motion to join respondents is denied
as to CMA. Plaintiffs' motion to join WD is denied, without
prejudice, subject to Plaintiffs' decision to refile following an
evidentiary hearing on the issues ofwhether the asset sale amounted
to a merger between WDE and WD and whether WD substantially
continued WDE's business.

The denials have to do with the details of bankrupt companies
selling off assets, and have nothing to do with the copyright

"The only way to nullify the assignment is to prove that the transfer
was fraudulent.
Additionally, Plaintiffs may add the alleged continuing infringers to
this action as direct defendants. Merely because Plaintiffs choose not
to utilize these alternative courses ofaction, but instead move to join
CMA and WD as WDE's successors in interest, does not mean Plaintiffs'
copyright lacks protection. Thus, the California law authorizing
assignments for the benefit of creditors does not "permit[] infringement
to continue unabated"I06 and does not frustrate the enforcement of
federal copyright law."

So Bradley Blowhard ... "add the alleged continuing infringers to this
action as direct defendants" or STFU concerning copyright infringement

RJack :)

reply via email to

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