On 5/13/2010 4:12 PM, RJack wrote:
Why didn't you include the full context highlighted above?
Because it is irrelevant. The portion I quoted demonstrates a court
saying that the registration of a copyright is a claim by the
registrant to ownership of his part in the work, and does not make
any statement with regards to ownership or lack of same by anyone
else. The extra portions you quote neither contribute to nor refute
this point, which is why I omitted them.
I am puzzled by your position. The defendants in Best Buy et. al.
have denied Andersen's ownership of BusyBox. The burden is on
Andersen to prove his ownership. What's your point? That the SFLC
and Andersen are blithering idiots when they can't prove ownership
of BusyBox?
My position is that Erik Anderson is an owner of BusyBox, that his
registration of copyright in BusyBox is valid, and that the claims by
the defendants that Erik Anderson is not an owner of BusyBox are
incorrect.