Stupidity rules in the Ninth Circuit:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ADOBE SYSTEMS INCORPORATED,
Plaintiff,
v.
ANTHONY KORNRUMPF, a/k/a TONY
KORNRUMPF; and HOOPS ENTERPRISE, LLC,
Defendants.
/
HOOPS ENTERPRISE, LLC,
Counter-Claimant,
v.
ADOBE SYSTEMS
http://www.iplitigationupdate.com/blog.aspx?entry=1173
Sending Promotional Music CDs Constitutes First Sale for Copyright
Protection Purposes
Januar 28, 2011 | Posted by Karin Scherner Aldama | Print this page
The Ninth Circuit recently held that a copyright owners unsolicited
mailing of
On 2/3/2011 8:16 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Stupidity rules in the Ninth Circuit:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
CALIFORNIA ADOBE SYSTEMS INCORPORATED, Plaintiff, v. ANTHONY
KORNRUMPF, a/k/a TONY KORNRUMPF; and HOOPS ENTERPRISE, LLC,
Defendants. / HOOPS
On 2/2/2011 9:47 AM, RJack wrote:
Uh... buh bye SFC and Erik Andersen:
---Filed 02/01/11---
ANSWER OF PHOEBE MICRO, INC.
... [snip]
AFFIRMATIVE AND ADDITIONAL DEFENSES
Phoebe Micro, as and for affirmative and additional defenses, alleges as
follows:
1. The Complaint fails to state a
RJack u...@example.net writes:
On 2/2/2011 9:47 AM, RJack wrote:
Uh... buh bye SFC and Erik Andersen:
---Filed 02/01/11---
ANSWER OF PHOEBE MICRO, INC.
Uh, that's the reply of the defendant, not a court order. Let's see how
much of it remains after being filtered through the judge
RJack wrote:
[...]
All this ruling really says, is that Hoops as a counter-claimant has the
status of a plaintiff (not defendant) and carries the burden of proof
and must plead facts to establish ownership of the copies in order to
defeat a Motion to Dismiss.
I disagree. The court ruled:
On 2/3/2011 10:54 AM, RJack wrote:
On 2/2/2011 9:47 AM, RJack wrote:
Uh... buh bye SFC and Erik Andersen:
---Filed 02/01/11--- ANSWER OF PHOEBE MICRO, INC.
... [snip]
AFFIRMATIVE AND ADDITIONAL DEFENSES
Phoebe Micro, as and for affirmative and additional defenses, alleges
as
RJack u...@example.net writes:
On 2/3/2011 10:59 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
RJacku...@example.net writes:
On 2/2/2011 9:47 AM, RJack wrote:
Uh... buh bye SFC and Erik Andersen:
---Filed 02/01/11--- ANSWER OF PHOEBE MICRO, INC.
Uh, that's the reply of the defendant, not a court
On 2/3/2011 11:24 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
RJack wrote: [...]
All this ruling really says, is that Hoops as a counter-claimant
has the status of a plaintiff (not defendant) and carries the
burden of proof and must plead facts to establish ownership of the
copies in order to defeat a
On 2/3/2011 10:59 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
RJacku...@example.net writes:
On 2/2/2011 9:47 AM, RJack wrote:
Uh... buh bye SFC and Erik Andersen:
---Filed 02/01/11--- ANSWER OF PHOEBE MICRO, INC.
Uh, that's the reply of the defendant, not a court order. Let's see
how much of it
10 matches
Mail list logo
