A proper infringement pleading

[rjack]

To illustrate the deficiency of the SFLC's pleadings filed in all of the BusyBox
suits, here is an excerpt from a properly pled infringement claim from
SCO v. IBM:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         EIGHTH COUNTERCLAIM
                        Copyright Infringement
119. IBM repeats and realleges the averments in paragraphs 1 through 118, with
the same force and effect as though they were set forth fully herein.
120. As stated, IBM has made contributions of source code to Linux under the
GPL. IBM is, and at all relevant times has been, the owner of valid copyrights
in these contributions, as well as of all the rights, title and interest in
those copyrights.
121. IBM holds the following certificates of copyright from the United States
Copyright Office (copies of which are attached hereto as Exhibits O - U), among
others:

Registration No.  Date of Registration   Title of Work

TX 5-757-696  August 15, 2003    BM Enterprise Volume Management System
TX 5-757-697  August 15, 2003    IBM Enterprise Class Event Logging
TX 5-757-698  August 15, 2003    IBM Dynamic Probes
TX 5-757-699  August 15, 2003    IBM Linux Support Power PC64
TX 5-757-700  August 15, 2003    IBM Omni Print Driver
TTX 5-757-701 August 15, 2003    IBM Journaled File System
TX 5-757-702  August 15, 2003    IBM Next Generation Posix Threading

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20031102104937393

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notice the *specific* identification of the works that have been registered
with the Copyright Office? The SFLC claims:

"6. Plaintiffs are authors and developers of the BusyBox computer program, and
the owners of copyrights in that computer program."

Here is a list of BusyBox developers from the BusyBox site. Who owns what code?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following login accounts currently exist on busybox.net. (I.E. these people
can commit patches into subversion for the BusyBox, uClibc, and buildroot 
projects.)
aldot     :Bernhard Fischer
andersen  :Erik Andersen      - uClibc and BuildRoot maintainer.
bug1      :Glenn McGrath
davidm    :David McCullough
gkajmowi  :Garrett Kajmowicz  - uClibc++ maintainer
jbglaw    :Jan-Benedict Glaw
jocke     :Joakim Tjernlund
landley   :Rob Landley        - BusyBox maintainer
lethal    :Paul Mundt
mjn3      :Manuel Novoa III
osuadmin  :osuadmin
pgf       :Paul Fox
pkj       :Peter Kjellerstedt
prpplague :David Anders
psm       :Peter S. Mazinger
russ      :Russ Dill
sandman   :Robert Griebl
sjhill    :Steven J. Hill
solar     :Ned Ludd
timr      :Tim Riker
tobiasa   :Tobias Anderberg
vapier    :Mike Frysinger

The following accounts used to exist on busybox.net, but don't anymore so I
can't ask /etc/passwd for their names. Rob Wentworth asked Google and recovered
the names:

aaronl   :Aaron Lehmann
beppu    :John Beppu
dwhedon  :David Whedon
erik     :Erik Andersen
gfeldman :Gennady Feldman
jimg     :Jim Gleason
kraai    :Matt Kraai
markw    :Mark Whitley
miles    :Miles Bader
proski   :Pavel Roskin
rjune    :Richard June
tausq    :Randolph Chung
vodz     :Vladimir N. Oleynik

http://busybox.net/FAQ.html#who
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Failure to demonstrate properly identified registrations OWNED by the two
plaintiffs Landley and Andersen is grounds for immediate dismissal by the
District Court for lack of jurisdiction. Here is the law of the Second Circuit
where the SFLC is filing its bogus suits:

"It [The Copyright Act] provides that "no action for infringement of the
copyright in any United States work shall be instituted until preregistration or
registration of the copyright claim has been made in accordance with this
title." . . .  Whether this requirement is jurisdictional is not up for debate
in this Circuit. On two recent occasions, we have squarely held that it is."
In re Literary Works in Electronic Databases Copyright Litigation 509 F.3d 116
(United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 2007)

The lawyers at the SFLC do not understand how to properly file an infringement
claim, much less defend against a Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.

Why should we believe *any* self-serving statements issued by the SFLC?

The SFLC will NEVER, NEVER, NEVER allow a Federal Court to review the GPL
license on the merits. They'll dismiss WITH PREJUDICE before allowing any
meaningful court review to occur.

Sincerely,
Rjack :)

-- "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations,
or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and
evidence." -- John Adams, 'Argument in Defense of the Soldiers in the Boston
Massacre Trials,' December 1770