|
From: | RJack |
Subject: | Re: Blowhard Bradley Kuhn and his fraud |
Date: | Tue, 30 Nov 2010 10:24:15 -0500 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101027 Thunderbird/3.1.6 |
On 11/30/2010 10:03 AM, Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 11/30/2010 2:46 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:First ever official court denials against Bradley Kuhn http://www.terekhov.de/159.pdfPretty weak sauce: To the extent Plaintiffs are arguing that CMA or WD is guilty of copyright infringement through its own use of the Infringing Assets, Plaintiffs may amend the Complaint to plead facts specific to CMA or WD's alleged infringing activity. ... For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs' motion to join respondents is denied as to CMA. Plaintiffs' motion to join WD is denied, without prejudice, subject to Plaintiffs' decision to refile following an evidentiary hearing on the issues ofwhether the asset sale amounted to a merger between WDE and WD and whether WD substantially continued WDE's business. The denials have to do with the details of bankrupt companies selling off assets, and have nothing to do with the copyright arguments.
"The only way to nullify the assignment is to prove that the transfer was fraudulent. Additionally, Plaintiffs may add the alleged continuing infringers to this action as direct defendants. Merely because Plaintiffs choose not to utilize these alternative courses ofaction, but instead move to join CMA and WD as WDE's successors in interest, does not mean Plaintiffs' copyright lacks protection. Thus, the California law authorizing assignments for the benefit of creditors does not "permit[] infringement to continue unabated"I06 and does not frustrate the enforcement of federal copyright law." So Bradley Blowhard ... "add the alleged continuing infringers to this action as direct defendants" or STFU concerning copyright infringement claims. Sincerely, RJack :)
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |