[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Original code

From: rjack
Subject: Re: Original code
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 19:24:24 -0500
User-agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20071031)

Alexander Terekhov wrote:
rjack wrote:
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. Does anyone have
any idea which source code is actually the plaintiffs sole
original work? The BusyBox site

Aren't they supposed to have the copyight(s) registered prior to filing
the suit?

I've just checked and it doesn't seem
to have anything from Rob Landley and/or Erik Andersen.



"Plaintiffs’ copyrights are unique and valuable property whose market
value is impossible to assess"

                             -- SOFTWARE FREEDOM LAW CENTER, INC.


From the United states Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit where the suit is filed:

"It provides that “no action for infringement of the copyright in any United States work shall be instituted until pre-registration or registration of the copyright claim has been made in accordance with this title.” 17 U.S.C. sec. 411(a); see also 17 U.S.C. sec. 501.1 Whether this requirement is jurisdictional is not up for debate in this Circuit. On two recent occasions, we have squarely held that it is."; In re Literary Works in Electronic Databases Copyright Litigation; Nos. 05-5943-cv(L), 06-0223-cv(CON)(2d Cir. Nov. 29, 2007).

Ouuuuuch!!!! No jurisdiction -- automatic dismissal.

Rjack :)

-- "Standing involves two distinct inquiries. First, an Article III federal court must ask whether a plaintiff has suffered sufficient injury to satisfy the "case or controversy" requirement of Article III ... Second, if a plaintiff has suffered sufficient injury to satisfy Article III, a federal court must ask whether a statute has conferred "standing" on that plaintiff."; Cetacean Community v. Bush, 386 F.3d 1169 (United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 2004) --

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]