Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

[RJack]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> On 4/9/2010 11:37 AM, RJack wrote:
> > The claim processing rules dictated by 17 USC sec. 411(a) require 
> > the specific work be identified through registration with the 
> > Copyright Office. Stop making up nonsense Hyman.
>
> Tell it to the court: 
> <http://www.scribd.com/doc/14760460/Simplexgrinnell-v-Integrated-040809>
>  39. ... Provided that SimplexGrinnell register its copyrights, 
> therefore, should ISPI engage in further infringement of versions not
>  covered by this injunction, injunctive relief, and possible damages 
> in significant amount, may follow. There is thus an adequate 
> deterrent to future abuse by ISPI of copyrighted materials.


That's one of the slickest out of context edits I've seen for a while
Hyman. Try:

"39. That is not to say that SimplexGrinnell is entirely without remedy
as to ISPI’s unauthorized use of other versions. Now that the meaning of
the Bankruptcy Stipulation is authoritatively established, ISPI is on
clear notice that it may not use SimplexGrinnell’s proprietary software
beyond the limits set forth in this opinion. Provided that
SimplexGrinnell register its copyrights, therefore, should ISPI engage
in further infringement of versions not covered by this injunction,
injunctive relief, and possible damages in significant amount, may
follow."


ROFL...

Provided that SimplexGrinnell register its copyrights... possible
damages in significant amount, may follow.

ROFL...

You're a great fan of "provided that" and "may" aren't you Hyman?

Sincerely,
Rjack