[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: "News" Verizon calls SFLC bluff

From: Alexander Terekhov
Subject: Re: "News" Verizon calls SFLC bluff
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 20:20:44 +0100

Tim Smith wrote:
> OK, this one confuses me.  At first I thought there was no case against
> Verizon because they were just distributing boxes that they got from the
> other company.  But they were also hosting firmware downloads.  That's
> copying, isn't it?  So doesn't that require Verizon to have permission
> of the copyright holder?

I suspect that Verizon folks simply told SFLC that they are ready to
raise a whole bunch of defenses resulting (if successful) in
enforceability of GPL'd copyrights once and for all (e.g. doctrine of
copyright misuse) and, even if that fails, they'll move to dismiss
SFLC's *copyright infringement* claim on the grounds spelled by Judge
White in Jacobsen case... letting SFLC kindly pay Verizon lawyer's $700+
(or some such) per hour attorneys' fees
("In Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court recently held that
attorneys' fees awarded in copyright infringement actions must be made
on the same basis to both prevailing plaintiffs and prevailing
defendants. In so holding, the Court reversed a Ninth Circuit decision
and rejected its "dual standard", under which prevailing defendants
needed to show that the lawsuit was brought frivolously or in bad faith
in order to recover attorneys' fees.)"

Scared, SFLC ran away (and orchestrated a "settlement" with uncharged 
party Actiontec).



reply via email to

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