Re: The great BusyBox fraud continues

[RJack]

On 8/5/2010 9:13 PM, voodoo wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 18:24:06 -0400, RJack wrote:
>
> > On 7/28/2010 8:41 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > > SFLC gang 'won' $90,000 + attorneys fees and costs and expenses
> > > against LONG INSOLVENT AND ASSETS-DISSOLVED DEFENCELESS defendant
> > > on default.
> > >
> > > Congrats to Eben Moglen and his underlings.
> > >
> > > LOL.
> > Uh... PJ over at Groklaw says the default judgment against Western
> > Digital proves, "Of course, to collect the money, the plaintiffs
> > must
>
> that would be westinghouse digital. westinghouse is that company from
> the last century that makes heavy electric equipment.
>
> western digital makes disk drives and is not a part of this issue.

You are correct. It is Westinghouse Digital. There is certainly strong
grounds to appeal the default judgment by Westinghouse's successors in
interest. Here is a summary of the default judgment law of the Second
Circuit, which controls the Westinghouse case:

"At an inquest, the complaint's factual allegations must be accepted as
true except as they relate to damages.  See Au Bon Pain Corp. v. Artect,
Inc., 653 F.2d 61, 65 (2d Cir. 1981). In addition, the plaintiff is
entitled to all reasonable inferences from the evidence presented. See
id. ...

A court must evaluate whether a basis for damages exists in a
circumstance where a judgment by default is rendered, and a plaintiff
must establish the quantum of damages in a post-default inquest, "unless
the amount is liquidated or susceptible of mathematical computation."
Flaks v. Koegel, 504 F.2d 702, 707 (2d Cir. 1974) (citations omitted).
"[U]nless the amount of damages [is] absolutely certain, the court is
required to make an independent determination of the sum to be awarded."
 S.E.C. v. Writ. Dynamics, Inc., 515 F.2d 801, 814 (2d Cir. 1975). A
court should not award damages if the evidence presented by a plaintiff,
at an inquest, does not adequately provide a reasonable basis for
determining damages.  See In re Crazy Eddie Litigation, 948 F. Supp.
1154, 1160 (E.D.N.Y. 1996) (citation omitted)."
http://www.josephnyc.com/blog/?blogID=765

The damages suffered for code released under the GPL is zero since
the GPL requires licensing "at no cost to all third parties". Hence the
statutory damages award against Westinghouse are wildly
disproportionate. Statutory copyright damages must bear some rational
relationship to actual damages suffered.

Sincerely,
RJack :)