Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

[RJack]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> On 4/8/2010 3:53 PM, RJack wrote:
> > *When* they fix the broken link, will it point to the source code
> > for "BusyBox, v.0.60.3" as claimed in their frivolous lawsuit?
>
> Of course not, unless that is the version of the binary which the
> (former) defendants are distributing. You are also deliberately
> lying, since the lawsuit in fact does not claim infringement of this
> version in particular.


"BusyBox, v.0.60.3" is the version of BusyBox registered with the
Copyright Office by the plaintiff and is the only copyrighted work
claimed in the lawsuit. You may turn red in the face with eyes bulging
and rhetorically claim that I'm lying but it won't get you anywhere.

The claim-processing requirements of 17 USC sec 411 (no longer
jurisdictional after Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick, Case No. 08-103)
require the alleged infringed work be registered with specificity.

It is the job of the trier of fact to compare the *registered* work with
the alleged infringing copy for "substantial similarity". In the instant
suit, no binary has been *registered* for comparison with the alleged
infringing binary. I'll leave it to you to explain how a jury would
compare a work that you *refuse* to identify with *specificity* with
some *alleged* infringing work.

Sincerely,
RJack :)