Re: "News" Verizon calls SFLC bluff

[Alexander Terekhov]

Tim Smith wrote:
> 
> OK, this one confuses me.  At first I thought there was no case against
> Verizon because they were just distributing boxes that they got from the
> other company.  But they were also hosting firmware downloads.  That's
> copying, isn't it?  So doesn't that require Verizon to have permission
> of the copyright holder?

I suspect that Verizon folks simply told SFLC that they are ready to
raise a whole bunch of defenses resulting (if successful) in
enforceability of GPL'd copyrights once and for all (e.g. doctrine of
copyright misuse) and, even if that fails, they'll move to dismiss
SFLC's *copyright infringement* claim on the grounds spelled by Judge
White in Jacobsen case... letting SFLC kindly pay Verizon lawyer's $700+
(or some such) per hour attorneys' fees
http://www.ladas.com/BULLETINS/1994/0694Bulletin/US_CopyrightActAttyFees.html
("In Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court recently held that
attorneys' fees awarded in copyright infringement actions must be made
on the same basis to both prevailing plaintiffs and prevailing
defendants. In so holding, the Court reversed a Ninth Circuit decision
and rejected its "dual standard", under which prevailing defendants
needed to show that the lawsuit was brought frivolously or in bad faith
in order to recover attorneys' fees.)"

Scared, SFLC ran away (and orchestrated a "settlement" with uncharged 
party Actiontec).

regards,
alexander.

--
http://linuxtaliban.com/bilder.htm