Re: SFLC in frivolous mode again

[RJack]

David Kastrup wrote:
> Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:
>
> > The NYSD court seems to get fed up with SFLC practice of filing 
> > delay stipulations.
> >
> > "No further extensions for this, or any defendant in this action, 
> > will be granted. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 1/6/10) 
> > (cd) (Entered: 01/07/2010)"
>
> Uh, "this, or any [other] defendant".  The SFLC is the plaintiff. The
>  SFLC may have _agreed_ to the delay stipulation, but it certainly
> was not the one to _file_ it.

Hey DAK... since the only possibility for a stipulation to extend the
time to respond to the complaint applies to the defendants (ever hear of
a plaintiff answering his own complaint?) it is or should be obvious
that the stipulation (by definition) is a MUTUAL agreement between
plaintiff and defendant.

The SFLC will agree to *anything* to prevent any further motions to
dismiss by the defendants to be filed in this matter. THE SFLC WILL
NEVER, NEVER ALLOW A FEDERAL JUDGE TO INTERPRET THE GPL CONTRACT ON ITS
MERITS. This case is *guaranteed* to end in a voluntary dismissal.

1) Here's what would happen to the bogus plaintiff "The Software Freedom
Conservancy, Inc.". From the Second Circuit Court of Appeals:

"The Copyright Act authorizes only two types of claimants to sue for
copyright infringement: (1) owners of copyrights, and (2) persons who
have been granted exclusive licenses by owners of copyrights.[Note 3]

[Note 3] ... We do not believe that the Copyright Act permits holders of
rights under copyrights to choose third parties to bring suits on their
behalf. While F.R.Civ.P. 17(a) ordinarily permits the real party in
interest to ratify a suit brought by another party, see Urrutia Aviation
Enterprises v. B.B. Burson & Associates, Inc., 406 F.2d 769, 770 (5th
Cir.1969); Clarkson Co. Ltd. v. Rockwell Int'l Corp., 441 F.Supp. 792
(N.D.Calif.1977), the Copyright Law is quite specific in stating that
only the "owner of an exclusive right under a copyright" may bring suit.
17 U.S.C. Sec.  501(b) (Supp. IV 1980)."; Eden Toys Inc v. Florelee
Undergarment Co Inc, 697 F.2d 27 (2nd Cir 1983).

Goodbye bogus "The Software Freedom Conservancy, Inc."!!!

2) Any motion to dismiss filed by the plaintiff's challenging Erik
Anderson's ownership of the copyrights to “BusyBox,v.0.60.3.” would
instantly reveal the fraudulent copyright registration involved.

See: http://www.mail-archive.com/gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org/msg12235.html

Motions to "Extend Time to Answer Complaint" are very routinely and
liberally granted in the SDNY by a *magistrate* of the court. There is
no question that Judge Shira A. Scheindlin assigned to this case smells
a big rat.

I hope and pray this case proceeds on the merits -- but it won't. It is
obvious the SFLC staff aren't competent enough to file a complaint that
would survive a motion to dismiss by the defendants.

THE SFLC WILL NEVER, NEVER ALLOW A FEDERAL JUDGE TO INTERPRET THE GPL
CONTRACT ON ITS MERITS.

A voluntary motion to dismiss with a subsequent press release parroted
by Pee Jay and the SFLC astroturf campaign declaring "victory" is
inevitable.

Sincerely,
Rjack