Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

[Hyman Rosen]

On 4/13/2010 9:37 AM, RJack wrote:
> The SFLC lawsuit claims that BusyBox 0.60.3 is the infringed work, as
> can easily be seen by reading the complaint,
> <http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2009/busybox-complaint-2009-12-14.pdf>.

It is silly for you to continually lie about what an
easily read document states. The complaint alleges that
the defendants infringe on "BusyBox", not on a specific
version. The only mention of a specific version is
<http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2009/busybox-complaint-2009-12-14.pdf>
    31. Mr. Andersen is, and at all relevant times has been,
    a copyright owner under United States copyright law in
    the FOSS software program known as BusyBox. See, e.g.,
    “BusyBox, v.0.60.3.”, Copyright Reg. No. TX0006869051
    (10/2/2008). Plaintiff Software Freedom Conservancy is
    the corporate home for the BusyBox project and the
    designated copyright enforcement agent for Mr. Andersen
    with respect to BusyBox.

It is possible that the court will decide it does not have
subject-matter jurisdiction over the versions which the
defendants are copying and distributing because those
versions are not registered. In that case, the plaintiffs
will register those versions and refile their claim. I
don't know whether all circuits have the requirement that
each separate version must be registered, as was the case
in the SimplexGrinell decision.
<http://www.scribd.com/doc/14760460/Simplexgrinnell-v-Integrated-040809>

> The plaintiffs are required to make available with specificity (i.e.
> non-moving target) the registered version (v. 0.60.3) of the BusyBox
> source code used to create the binary which they allege is copied and
> distributed, not the source code to some other BusyBox version.

No, that is false. The defendants are required to make available the
source to the version of BusyBox which they copy and distribute.