Re: Samsung's answer to SFLC gang
From pacer... interesting bits from Samsung's answer : Defendant denies that Mr. Anderson is the author or developer of the BusyBox computer program, and the owner of the copyright in that computer program. FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure to State a Claim) 36. As a separate and distinct First Affirmative Defense to the Complaint and each claim for relief alleged therein, Defendant alleges that the Complaint and each of said claims for relief fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Statute of Limitations) 37. As a further, separate and distinct Second Affirmative Defense to the Complaint and each claim for relief alleged therein, Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs claims are barred by applicable statutes of limitations including, but not limited to, 28 U.S.C. § 1658 and 17 U.S.C. § 507(b). THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Improper Joinder) 38. As a further, separate and distinct Third Affirmative Defense to the Complaint and each claim for relief alleged therein, Defendant alleges that the Complaint improperly joins different defendants and/or plaintiffs and/or fails to join necessary defendants and/or plaintiffs including, but not limited to, all the co-authors of the alleged copyrighted materials. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Laches) 39. As a further, separate and distinct Fourth Affirmative Defense to the Complaint and each claim for relief alleged therein, Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs claims are barred by the doctrine of laches. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Unclean Hands) 40. As a further, separate and distinct Fifth Affirmative Defense to the Complaint and each claim for relief alleged therein, Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs claims are barred by the doctrine of unclean hands. SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Estoppel) 41. As a further, separate and distinct Sixth Affirmative Defense to the Complaint and each claim for relief alleged therein, Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs claims are barred by the doctrine of estoppel. SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (No Copyright Interest) 42. As a further, separate and distinct Seventh Affirmative Defense to the Complaint and each claim for relief alleged therein, Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs do not have sufficient rights in the alleged copyrighted materials to claim ownership in any copyright therein. EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Fair Use) 43. As a further, separate and distinct Eighth Affirmative Defense to the Complaint and each claim for relief alleged therein, Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs claims are barred by the doctrine of fair use. NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Misuse) 44. As a further, separate and distinct Ninth Affirmative Defense to the Complaint and each claim for relief alleged therein, Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs claims are barred by the doctrine of copyright misuse. Defendants are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that Plaintiffs claims are barred because Plaintiffs have used the alleged copyrights at issue in this case to engage in anticompetitive behavior under United States law. TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Innocent Infringement) 45. As a further, separate and distinct Tenth Affirmative Defense to the Complaint and each claim for relief alleged therein, Defendant alleges that, to the extent Defendant has infringed any of Plaintiffs copyrights such infringement was innocent and unintentional. ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (De Minimis Use) 46. As a further, separate and distinct Eleventh Affirmative Defense to the Complaint and each claim for relief alleged therein, Defendant alleges that any alleged copyright infringement was only de minimis and, therefore, not actionable. TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Licensed Use) 47. As a separate and distinct Twelfth Affirmative Defense and each claim for relief alleged therein, Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs claim for copyright infringement is barred under at least the provisions of 17 U.S.C. § 109(a), as Defendant was licensed and any copies alleged to be infringing were, therefore, lawfully made. THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Improper Venue) 48. As a further, separate and distinct Thirteenth Affirmative Defense to the Complaint and each claim for relief alleged therein, Defendant alleges that venue for this matter is improper. FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Public Domain) 49. As a further, separate and distinct Fourteenth Affirmative Defense to the Complaint and each claim for relief alleged therein, Defendant alleges that the alleged copyrighted materials are now, and have been during all relevant times, within the public domain. FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Lack of Standing) 50. As a further, separate and distinct Fifteenth Affirmative Defense to the Complaint and each claim for relief alleged therein, Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs lack standing to sue Defendant for copyright infringement. SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure to Register Copyright) 51. As a further, separate and distinct
Re: Samsung's answer to SFLC gang
Alexander Terekhov wrote: From pacer... interesting bits from Samsung's answer : Defendant denies that Mr. Anderson is the author or developer of the BusyBox computer program, and the owner of the copyright in that computer program. FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure to State a Claim) 36. As a separate and distinct First Affirmative Defense to the Complaint and each claim for relief alleged therein, Defendant alleges that the Complaint and each of said claims for relief fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Statute of Limitations) 37. As a further, separate and distinct Second Affirmative Defense to the Complaint and each claim for relief alleged therein, Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by applicable statutes of limitations including, but not limited to, 28 U.S.C. § 1658 and 17 U.S.C. § 507(b). THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Improper Joinder) 38. As a further, separate and distinct Third Affirmative Defense to the Complaint and each claim for relief alleged therein, Defendant alleges that the Complaint improperly joins different defendants and/or plaintiffs and/or fails to join necessary defendants and/or plaintiffs including, but not limited to, all the co-authors of the alleged copyrighted materials. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Laches) 39. As a further, separate and distinct Fourth Affirmative Defense to the Complaint and each claim for relief alleged therein, Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the doctrine of laches. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Unclean Hands) 40. As a further, separate and distinct Fifth Affirmative Defense to the Complaint and each claim for relief alleged therein, Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the doctrine of unclean hands. SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Estoppel) 41. As a further, separate and distinct Sixth Affirmative Defense to the Complaint and each claim for relief alleged therein, Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the doctrine of estoppel. SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (No Copyright Interest) 42. As a further, separate and distinct Seventh Affirmative Defense to the Complaint and each claim for relief alleged therein, Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs do not have sufficient rights in the alleged copyrighted materials to claim ownership in any copyright therein. EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Fair Use) 43. As a further, separate and distinct Eighth Affirmative Defense to the Complaint and each claim for relief alleged therein, Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the doctrine of fair use. NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Misuse) 44. As a further, separate and distinct Ninth Affirmative Defense to the Complaint and each claim for relief alleged therein, Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the doctrine of copyright misuse. Defendants are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that Plaintiffs’ claims are barred because Plaintiffs have used the alleged copyrights at issue in this case to engage in anticompetitive behavior under United States law. TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Innocent Infringement) 45. As a further, separate and distinct Tenth Affirmative Defense to the Complaint and each claim for relief alleged therein, Defendant alleges that, to the extent Defendant has infringed any of Plaintiffs’ copyrights such infringement was innocent and unintentional. ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (De Minimis Use) 46. As a further, separate and distinct Eleventh Affirmative Defense to the Complaint and each claim for relief alleged therein, Defendant alleges that any alleged copyright infringement was only de minimis and, therefore, not actionable. TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Licensed Use) 47. As a separate and distinct Twelfth Affirmative Defense and each claim for relief alleged therein, Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs’ claim for copyright infringement is barred under at least the provisions of 17 U.S.C. § 109(a), as Defendant was licensed and any copies alleged to be infringing were, therefore, lawfully made. THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Improper Venue) 48. As a further, separate and distinct Thirteenth Affirmative Defense to the Complaint and each claim for relief alleged therein, Defendant alleges that venue for this matter is improper. FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Public Domain) 49. As a further, separate and distinct Fourteenth Affirmative Defense to the Complaint and each claim for relief alleged therein, Defendant alleges that the alleged copyrighted materials are now, and have been during all relevant times, within the public domain. FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Lack of Standing) 50. As a further, separate and distinct Fifteenth Affirmative Defense to the Complaint and each claim for relief alleged therein, Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs lack standing to sue Defendant for copyright infringement. SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure to Register
Re: Samsung's answer to SFLC gang
RJack u...@example.net writes: Alexander Terekhov wrote: WHEREFORE, Defendant prays for the following relief: 1. That Plaintiffs take nothing by their Complaint; 2. That Defendant be dismissed from this action with prejudice; 3. For its costs of suit incurred herein; 4. For its attorney fees incurred herein; and 5. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b)(1), Defendant demands trial by jury on all issues so triable. It appears Captain Moglen didn't scare 'em out of the water after all. That's typically the job of the court in the first hearings. It's not a general pattern in GPL compliance cases that the defendants settle and come into compliance before even having first contact with the court. If their legal views were that unclouded, they would have avoided having the matter of compliance move to a court in the first place. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Samsung's answer to SFLC gang
David Kastrup wrote: RJack u...@example.net writes: Alexander Terekhov wrote: WHEREFORE, Defendant prays for the following relief: 1. That Plaintiffs take nothing by their Complaint; 2. That Defendant be dismissed from this action with prejudice; 3. For its costs of suit incurred herein; 4. For its attorney fees incurred herein; and 5. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b)(1), Defendant demands trial by jury on all issues so triable. It appears Captain Moglen didn't scare 'em out of the water after all. That's typically the job of the court in the first hearings. It's not a general pattern in GPL compliance cases that the defendants settle and come into compliance before even having first contact with the court. If their legal views were that unclouded, they would have avoided having the matter of compliance move to a court in the first place. Have another drink DAK. Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
