|
From: | RJack |
Subject: | Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement |
Date: | Tue, 04 May 2010 16:12:58 -0000 |
User-agent: | Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Windows/20100228) |
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/8/2010 3:53 PM, RJack wrote:*When* they fix the broken link, will it point to the source code for "BusyBox, v.0.60.3" as claimed in their frivolous lawsuit?Of course not, unless that is the version of the binary which the (former) defendants are distributing. You are also deliberately lying, since the lawsuit in fact does not claim infringement of this version in particular.
"BusyBox, v.0.60.3" is the version of BusyBox registered with the Copyright Office by the plaintiff and is the only copyrighted work claimed in the lawsuit. You may turn red in the face with eyes bulging and rhetorically claim that I'm lying but it won't get you anywhere. The claim-processing requirements of 17 USC sec 411 (no longer jurisdictional after Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick, Case No. 08-103) require the alleged infringed work be registered with specificity. It is the job of the trier of fact to compare the *registered* work with the alleged infringing copy for "substantial similarity". In the instant suit, no binary has been *registered* for comparison with the alleged infringing binary. I'll leave it to you to explain how a jury would compare a work that you *refuse* to identify with *specificity* with some *alleged* infringing work. Sincerely, RJack :)
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |