[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Versa asserts joint ownership/indispensable party defense
From: |
David Kastrup |
Subject: |
Re: Versa asserts joint ownership/indispensable party defense |
Date: |
Tue, 04 May 2010 16:07:20 -0000 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1.92 (gnu/linux) |
Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:
> "THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
> (JOINT OWNERSHIP)
>
> On information and belief, Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs’ claims are
> barred because other third parties jointly created the alleged copyright
> at issue and those third parties are joint copyright owners of the
> alleged copyright at issue in this action.
That could be a defense if both
a) all copyrighted portions were of joint copyright ownership
b) defendants could show having permission from other joint copyright
owners
> FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
> (INDISPENSABLE PARTIES)
>
> On information and belief, Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs’ claims are
> barred because there are indispensable parties that have not been joined
> in this lawsuit, including the other authors and/or owners of the
> alleged copyright at issue."
Again, that requires that all copyrighted portions are of joint
copyright ownership.
As I said: we'll get our resident cranks to post all court filings of
the defendants under "huzzah! yes!", all filings of plaintiffs under
"LOL!", celebrate coming the defendants under compliance and a filed
settlement as a defeat of the plaintiffs, and a prospective court ruling
(if the defendants don't get a clue in time for the verdict) as absurd,
the product of drunk judges and in conflict with the Supreme Court or
whoever else.
It's not like we have not seen this spectacle before. And time and
again.
--
David Kastrup
- Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement, (continued)
- Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement, Alan Mackenzie, 2010/05/04
- Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement, Alexander Terekhov, 2010/05/04
- Bosch says the GPL is not enforceable, Alexander Terekhov, 2010/05/04
- Versa trashes the GPL as well, Alexander Terekhov, 2010/05/04
- Versa asserts joint ownership/indispensable party defense, Alexander Terekhov, 2010/05/04
- Re: Versa asserts joint ownership/indispensable party defense, RJack, 2010/05/04
- Re: Versa asserts joint ownership/indispensable party defense, Hyman Rosen, 2010/05/04
- Re: Versa asserts joint ownership/indispensable party defense, RJack, 2010/05/04
- Re: Versa asserts joint ownership/indispensable party defense,
David Kastrup <=
- Re: Versa trashes the GPL as well, David Kastrup, 2010/05/04
- Re: Versa trashes the GPL as well, RJack, 2010/05/04
- Re: Versa trashes the GPL as well, Alexander Terekhov, 2010/05/04
- Re: Versa trashes the GPL as well, David Kastrup, 2010/05/04
- Re: Versa trashes the GPL as well, RJack, 2010/05/04
- Re: Versa trashes the GPL as well, David Kastrup, 2010/05/04
- Re: Versa trashes the GPL as well, Alexander Terekhov, 2010/05/04
- Re: Versa trashes the GPL as well, David Kastrup, 2010/05/04
- Re: Versa trashes the GPL as well, RJack, 2010/05/04
- Re: Versa trashes the GPL as well, RJack, 2010/05/04