Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/8/2010 6:44 PM, RJack wrote:
You are begging the question. How do you propose that a trier of
fact compared an *unspecified* work that you refuse to identify
with an *alleged* infringing copy? What's for the jury members to
Gathering such evidence will happen during discovery. Depositions
will be taken in order to determine the provenance of the software
being distributed by the defendants, plaintiffs will offer forensic
evidence based on analysis of the distributed binaries, and then the
plaintiffs will demonstrate that the software is being copied and
distributed in violation of its license.
The claim processing rules dictated by 17 USC sec. 411(a) require the
specific work be identified through registration with the Copyright
Office. Stop making up nonsense Hyman.
I'll bet the farm that no significant discovery will *ever* occur.
A defendant's F.R.C.P. Rule 12 Motion to Dismiss will be granted and
this charade of a lawsuit along with the GPL will end soon. The only
hope for the SFLC is to somehow beg all the defendants for a stipulated
voluntary dismissal. There is no way Best Buy Inc. will stipulate to
dismiss without their counterclaim for a declaratory judgement being
granted. The SFLC has finally had their bluff called by several defendants.
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list