Re: PJ of Groklaw tells a story... (celebrating CAFC's utter nonsense ruling)

[Rjack]

David Kastrup wrote:
> thufir <hawat.thufir@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 15:43:48 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
> >
> > > No doubt Eben Moglen is somewhat of a strange duck, but I'm not sure
> > > what you mean by "their powerful motivation, ieJ and Moglen"
> > >
> > > Do either of them have a vested interest in this, financial or otherwise
> > > or is this just a matter of winning an argument/making a point?
> >
> > I'm not sure what you're getting at, but I would say that "making a 
> > point" is an example of a vested interest.
>
> In the case of rjack, "bested interest" would be more fitting.

The woodwork's just full of 'em today!

Sincerely,
Rjack

"Pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 411(a) as well as its predecessor, § 13, it has 
been held repeatedly that ownership of a copyright registration is a 
jurisidictional prerequisite to an action for infringement. . . . A 
complaint which fails to plead compliance with § 411(a) is defective and 
subject to dismissal."; Techniques, Inc. v. Rohn, 592 F.Supp. 1195, 
1197; 225 U.S.P.Q. 741 (S.D.N.Y. 1984)