Re: Blowhard Bradley Kuhn and his fraud

[RJack]

On 3/7/2011 4:08 PM, RJack wrote:
> Best Buy Inc. has just filed a 28 page (available on PACER)
> Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary
> Injunction.
>
> Let the the fireworks begin!

Hmmmm... Overreach ?

From the Best Buy Inc. Memorandum in Opposition:


"... It does not stop there. Plaintiffs used their pretended enforcement
rights in the entire BusyBox code, as well as other open source
software, to attempt to extract prior review and veto rights over future
models of Insignia Blu-ray players and firmware releases. (McGinnis
Decl. at ¶ 15; Roberg-Perez Decl. Ex. I (demanding that Best Buy not
distribute firmware for the accused products until the Conservancy has
“approved the complete and corresponding source code therefor,” and not
limiting that demand solely to BusyBox code).) Best Buy is not inclined
to give veto power over its products to third parties who increasingly
demand more than they are entitled to recover at trial..."


"... For example, this past September, Plaintiffs complimented the
source code submitted by Best Buy and Broadcom, remarking that the “new
instructions are very well written; they are probably among the best
C&CS instructions I’ve seen in years.” (Khan Decl. at ¶ 12; Ex. A.) Yet,
later that same day, Plaintiffs continued to demand source code for
other open source software, and proprietary code, that has nothing to do
with BusyBox.6 (Id. at ¶¶ 9-13; Ex. B.) Consistent with Conservancy’s
opposition to proprietary rights in software, Conservancy demanded that
Broadcom include proprietary source code with the code that would be
offered under Paragraph 3 of GPLv2. Conservancy argued that the
particular file in question was a derivative work of an open source
Linux kernel. (Id. at ¶ 12.) But Conservancy does not have rights to
Linux, nor does it have rights to Broadcom’s proprietary source code.
Whether that code was proprietary to Broadcom, or derivative of Linux
open source code, it is completely unrelated to BusyBox. (Id. at ¶ 12;
Ex. B.) Thus, while Plaintiffs feign the need to avoid irreparable
injury, the facts establish that Plaintiffs would prefer to put the
BusyBox issue with Best Buy on hold in order to require Broadcom to
publish source code that has nothing to do with this case..."


"... Moreover, Plaintiffs’ two declarations in support of the Motion do
not, and cannot, even attempt to demonstrate any irreparable harm that
they will incur in the absence of an injunction. Indeed, during the
course of this case, the two Plaintiffs entered into a contract setting
forth details on how they would share monetary recoveries. They are
actually in the business of filing and monetizing “copyright enforcement
actions.” They also delayed bringing this Motion for almost 14 months,
while making demands for concessions outside the scope of the case, such
as prior review and veto power over source code other than BusyBox in
certain Best Buy products. This is hardly the conduct of parties that
desperately need a quick resolution of the issues in the case..."


"... The settlement discussions indicate that Plaintiffs, not Best Buy,
caused the delay by trying to muscle unbridled veto power over Best Buy
products based upon their ever-shifting, self-serving views of other
open source code irrelevant to this case..."

Sincerely,
RJack :)