RJack <user@example.net> writes:
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 compare?
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.
And enough material from the specific work identified through
registration can be found in the distributed software, even though it
is a different version. So copyrightable material has been
identified, and a license is needed for redistribution.
Stop making up nonsense Hyman.
I'll bet the farm that no significant discovery will *ever* occur.
And every single defendant will for some entirely unrelated reason
come into compliance without actually needing to do so, out of some
whim that has nothing to do with the case.
Your usual fairy tale when a GPL case succeeds.
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.
Yes, the same fairy tale as before. They'll crawl back into their
hole and by some utterly unrelated und incomprehensible act, GPLed
sources will be made available by defendants.
Like it happened every time so far.