Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!"

[Alexander Terekhov]

> 01/30/2009 22  ANSWER to Complaint with Jury Demand byPremier Election
> Solutions. (Froyd, Jane) (Filed on 1/30/2009) (Entered: 01/30/2009)

Complaint:

http://www.terekhov.de/GPLvDIEBOLD/COMPLAINT.pdf 

Answer:

------
ANSWER

1. In response to paragraph 1, Defendant is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations of paragraph 1 concerning ownership or licensing of software
by Artifex Software Inc. (“Artifex”), and on that basis denies them.
Defendant further denies all other allegations of paragraph 1.

2. Defendant admits the allegations of paragraph 2.

3. In response to paragraph 3, Defendant admits that this Court has
personal jurisdiction over the parties in this action, but otherwise
denies the allegations of paragraph 3.

4. Defendant admits the allegations of paragraph 4.

5. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph 5.

6. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth of the allegations of paragraph 6, and on that
basis denies them.

7. Defendant admits the allegations of paragraph 7.

8. In response to paragraph 8, Defendant admits that it is a Delaware
corporation and that it is a wholly owned subsidiary of Diebold Inc.
(“Diebold”). Defendant denies that its principal place of business is at
5995 Mayfair Rd., North Canton, OH 44720.

9. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth of the allegations of paragraph 9, and on that
basis denies them.

10. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth of the allegations of paragraph 10, and on that
basis denies them.

11. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth of the allegations of paragraph 11, and on that
basis denies them.

12. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth of the allegations of paragraph 12, and on that
basis denies them.

13. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth of the allegations of paragraph 13, and on that
basis denies them.

14. Defendant admits the allegations of paragraph 14.

15. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth of the allegations of paragraph 15, and on that
basis denies them.

16. In response to paragraph 16, Defendant admits that Diebold is a
multinational corporation with revenues in the billions of dollars.
Defendant denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 16.

17. Defendant admits the allegations of paragraph 17.

18. In response to paragraph 18, Defendant admits that its customers
purchase voting systems that consist of both hardware and software
components. Defendant denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 18.

19. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph 19.

20. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph 20.

21. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph 21.

22. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph 22.

23. Defendant incorporates its responses to the allegations of
paragraphs 1-22.

24. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth of the allegations of paragraph 24, and on that
basis denies them.

25. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph 25.

26. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph 26.

27. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph 27.

28. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph 28.

29. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph 29.

30. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph 30.

31  Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph 31.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

As and for affirmative defenses to the claims in Artifex Software Inc.’s
Complaint, and based on the knowledge and information available to it to
date, Defendant is informed and believes and based thereon alleges as
follows:

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

1. Any use of Ghostscript by Defendant was a lawful use pursuant to a
license.

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

2. Plaintiff’s claims for copyright infringement are barred by the
statute of limitations, 17 U.S.C. § 507(b).

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

3. Plaintiff’s claims for copyright infringement are barred by the
doctrine of laches. 

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

4. Plaintiff’s claims for copyright infringement are barred by the
doctrine of waiver. Defendant reserves all affirmative defenses under
Rule 8(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and any other
defenses, at law or in equity, that may be available now or may become
available in the future based on discovery or any other factual
investigation in the case.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully prays that this Court:

A. Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint and all claims and relief sought
therein;

B. Deny Plaintiff’s request for preliminary and permanent injunctive
relief;

C. Grant Defendant its reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of this
action; and

D. Grant Defendant such other and further relief as the Court deems just
and proper.

DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

Pursuant to Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
Defendant hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
------

regards,
alexander.

-- 
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm 
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can 
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards 
too, whereas GNU cannot.)