The SFLC stated in their FSF v. Cisco Complaint that:
"47. Plaintiff is also entitled to injunctive relief pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 502 and to an order impounding any and all infringing materials pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 503. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law for Defendant’s wrongful conduct because, among other things, (a) Plaintiff’s copyrights are unique and valuable assets whose market value is impossible to assess, (b) Defendant’s infringement harms Plaintiff such that Plaintiff could not be made whole by any monetary award, and (c) Defendant’s wrongful conduct, and the resulting damage to Plaintiff, is continuing." The Supreme Court has explictly ruled that Article III Constitutional standing requires that an "injury in fact" occur that is not "conjectural or hypothetical": "Over the years, our cases have established that the irreducible constitutional minimum of standing contains three elements: First, the plaintiff must have suffered an "injury in fact" — an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized, see id., at 756; Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 508 (1975); Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 740-741, n. 16 (1972); [n.1] and (b) "actual or imminent, not `conjectural' or `hypothetical,' " Whitmore, supra, at 155 (quoting Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102 (1983))"; Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992). The SFLC pleading is of moronic proportions: "Plaintiff’s copyrights are unique and valuable assets whose market value is impossible to assess". Now that's a real "concrete and particularized" injury that is not "conjectural or hypothetical" isn't it? ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL Sincerely, Rjack :) _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
