[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Original code
Re: Original code
Sat, 19 Jan 2008 11:49:45 -0500
Thunderbird 220.127.116.11 (Windows/20071031)
In the ongoing BusyBox GPL lawsuit with Verizon, the
plaintiffs Rob Landley and Erik Andersen
must identify the specific source code in which *they*
claim ownership as the original authors.
Verizon has been accused of distributing the binary object code
translated from the original BusyBox source code.
Once the alleged source code has been identified as the sole work
of the respective plaintiffs Landley and Anderson (and not the
work of other project contributors), the plaintiffs must
demonstrate the specific object code (e.g. translation of the
source code) that Verizon is violating.
Once all the non-ownership derivative patch code has been
removed, what are the chances that any compiler on the planet
will successfully compile the remaining fragments so that the
allegedly infringed code may used for a test of "substantial
similarity" to the sequence of thousands of ones and zeroes that
Verizon distributes in the firmware code? How do you demonstrate
"substantial similarity" in sequences of tens of thousands of
binary symbols? "Substantial similarity" is a question to be
decided by the trier-of-fact. It could be real interesting
watching a judge or jury do this kind of comparison.
A huge corporation like Verizon will hire a law firm charging
$250 - $400 per hour. The discovery phase, along with expert
witness fees will entail costs of tens of thousands of dollars or
more. The prevailing party in a copyright infringement action is
awarded legal expenses. See 17 U.S.C. sec. 505.
I wonder if Landley and Anderson will use the SFLC for their
--- "Although the United States Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. sec.
101- 1332, grants exclusive jurisdiction for infringement claims
to the federal courts, those courts construe copyrights as
contracts and turn to the relevant state law to interpret them.";
Automation by Design, Inc. v. Raybestos Products Co., 463 F.3d
749, (United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit