Re: Dismissal with prejudice is normal

[Linonut]

* rjack peremptorily fired off this memo:

> Tim Smith wrote:
>> Someone (I forget who) recently pointed out in one or both of these 
>> newsgroups that when SFLC and Verizon settled their recent lawsuit,
>> the suit was dismissed with prejudice.  What that means is that the
>> matter is completely over.  Plaintiff cannot file that suit again.
>> At first glance, it would seem that plaintiff, upon settlement, would
>> file for dismissal WITHOUT prejudice, so that plaintiff could re-file
>> the suit if the settlement was breached, or if new copyright
>> violations occurred.
>> 
>> I have checked with lawyers, and found out that dismissal WITH
>> prejudice is normal in these cases.  When plaintiff sues for
>> copyright infringement, that suit is over *specific* acts of
>> infringement.  When the parties settle, and the suit is dismissed
>> with prejudice, no more legal action can be taken against *those*
>> *specific* *acts* of infringement.
>> 
>
> 1) No *specific* acts of infringement were ever alleged -- only a
> general allegation was raised -- to wit:
>
> "13. Upon information and belief, since at least November 17, 2006,
> Verizon has distributed to the public copies of the Firmware in the
> Infringing Product, and none of these distributions included source code
> to BusyBox or offers to provide such source code."
>
> The reason no *specific* acts were alleged is because the alleged harm
> is failure to provide source code to "all third parties" AKA "the
> public" [see the GPL sec.2(b)].

Give it up, rjack.  You can't even get the usage of "specific" correct.

Your only recourse seems to be spewage.

-- 
Your most unhappy customers are your greatest source of learning.
   -- Bill Gates, Business @ The Speed of Thought (1999)