Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar

[Rjack]

Rahul Dhesi wrote:
> Rjack <user@example.net> writes:
>
> > The Verizon lawsuit involved no registered copyrights. The 
> > copyright infringement claims were without standing to even be
> >  heard in federal court so 17 USC 512 is *utterly
> > irrelevant*...
>
> References, please. Why would one need registration to get 
> standing?
>
> Were you maybe confusing between jurisdiction and standing? Even
>  so, references, please.


Why troll today? Bored Rahul? You participated in this thread:

*******************************************************************
Re: Software Fictional Licensing Center (SFLC) Files Another Round
of GPL Violation Lawsuits

Rahul Dhesi
Fri, 13 Jun 2008 21:21:57 -0700

rjack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> These settlements concern BusyBox source code that has never been
>  registered with the U.S. Copyright Office. The plaintiffs 
> obviously have no standing to file these frivolous suits:

I think you should file an amicus brief making this point.
--
Rahul
******************************************************************



You participated in this thread and responded to my posts. No
reasonable person could read your request for, "References, please.
Why would one need registration to get standing?". You know damn
well what the references are. Go read them for yourself and quit
exposing your phony ass to everyone on the internet.
Again Rahul, you participated in this thread:


******************************************************************
Re: Software Fictional Licensing Center (SFLC) Files Another Round
of GPL Violation Lawsuits

amicus_curious wrote:
> "Alexander Terekhov" <terekhov@web.de> wrote in message
news:484FB831.EF0A05DE@web.de...
> > "All of the previous lawsuits have resulted in out-of-court
settlements
> > requiring the defendants to distribute source code in 
> > compliance with the GPL."
> In every one of the cases that I have managed to find that had 
> any
detail, the "compliance" involved was publishing the source of the
original GPL product used.  There doesn't seem to be any instance of
the defendant publishing any new code.

I have have never found any *verifiable* detail of *any* settlement
of these lawsuits other than the court records available on PACER.

I have read hearsay reports of settlements released from SFLC blog
postings. . . these reports from SFLC lawyers who have spent the
past seven years claiming a copyright license is not a contract.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/enforcing-gpl.html

These settlements concern BusyBox source code that has never been
registered with the U.S. Copyright Office. The plaintiffs obviously
have no standing to file these frivolous suits:

"It 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 (2nd Cir. 2007).

Why believe *anything* from these SFLC crackpots? THE SFLC WILL
NEVER, NEVER ALLOW A FEDERAL COURT TO REVIEW THE GPL ON ITS MERITS.
They will even dismiss WITH PREJUDICE against their own clients
rather than see a court actually review their moronic GPL license
claims.

Sincerely,
Rjack

-- "Whether express or implied, a license is a contract 'governed by
ordinary principles of state contract law.'"; McCoy v. Mitsuboshi
Cutlery, Inc., 67. F.3d 917, (United States Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit 1995) --

********************************************************************


Sincerely,
Rjack :)