Re: Commercial Invocation

[rjack]

Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> rjack wrote:
> [...]
> > property sharing. At that point it's Federal Court lawsuit time.
> > Before you launch your product set aside sufficient money for
> > attorney fees to defend against his silly-assed ideologically
> > based claims. 
>
> Just FYI: Katzen et al. managed to get some fees back:
>
> "the Court hereby GRANTS Defendants’ motions to dismiss, DENIES 
> Defendants’ motion to bifurcate without prejudice, GRANTS 
> Defendants’ special motions to strike, and AWARDS attorneys’ fees 
> in the amount of $14,486.68 for Defendants Katzer and KAM and
> $16,976.25 for Defendant Russell."
>
> http://jmri.sourceforge.net/k/docket/111.pdf
>
> regards,
> alexander.
>
> --
> "Because of their informal and diffuse nature, open source groups are 
> vulnerable to theft of their intellectual property. That theft, in the 
> form of copyright infringement, happened in this case, and Jacobsen 
> sought a preliminary injunction to enjoin Katzer and KAMIND's 
> infringement."
>
>  -- BRIEF OF ROBERT G. JACOBSEN, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, CAFC 2008-1

In the BusyBox suit against Verizon, plaintiffs Anderson and 
Landley could easily cough up $50,000 - $150,000 or more for 
Verizon's attorney fees just for preliminary motions.

If Verizon's attorneys drag out the suit by filing a formal 
Answer to Complaint and begin discovery in lieu of a simple Rule 
12 Motion to Dismiss, they can really run up the attorney fee 
hours. The plaintiffs have no legal standing to complain about 
"all third parties" not receiving source code. You can bet 
Verizon's attorneys know that fact -- so burn up the hours -- 
that's often how the game is played when the prevailing party is 
awarded attorney fees (as in copyright infringement actions).

Regards,
Rjack :)