> > [... attorneys' fees to Best Buy Inc. counsel ... ]
> >> According to the document that AT posted, <http://terekhov.de/204.pdf>: > >> Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41, plaintiffs > >> Software Freedom Conservancy, Inc. and Erik Anderson and defendant > >> BEST BUY CO.,INC hereby dismiss their claims against each other from > >> within this action WITH PREJUDICE with respect to any past claims for > >> certain Insignia Blu-ray products (NS-WBRDVD, NS-BRDVD3, NS-BRHTIB, > >> NS-BRDVD3-CA, NS-WBRDVD2, NS-BRDVD4, NS-BRDVD4-CA, NS-BRDVD, NS-2BRDVD, > >> and NS-BDLIVB01) and without costs to any party. Plaintiffs maintain > >> this action against all other defendants.
> >> Why do you claim, in contradiction to this document, that SFLC > >> paid any costs to Best Buy?
> > Not in contradiction. Court costs != attorney's fees. Apples and > > oranges, Hyman.
> So the payments are just your personal fantasies again, made up to match > your impressively off-skew view of legal matters.
I made no claims regarding payments, silly. I just pointed out that such payments are not in contradiction.
> On 6/17/2011 6:53 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > >> Why do you claim, in contradiction to this document, that SFLC > >> paid any costs to Best Buy?
> > Not in contradiction. Court costs != attorney's fees.
> The document does not order either side to pay attorney's fees.
The contradiction would be if the court would order not to pay attorney's fees, silly.
regards, alexander.
-- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.)
-- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.)
> Do you believe that at the conclusion of a case, one party pays > the attorney fees of another unless a court instructs them not > to do so? How odd.
"How could the middle class--not to mention the lower class--use the courts if people who lost on a fluke had to pay their opponents' legal fees? Wouldn't they drop even valid suits?
. . .
Loser-pays is the standard in England, so it is sometimes known as the "English Rule." It is thus often spoken of as if it were some Beefeaters-and-warm-beer eccentricity of the Sceptered Isle. But it has no special connection with England. It has prevailed for millennia in Europe, developing early in Roman law and spreading from there to the civil law systems that evolved all over the continent and became codified in France, Germany, and elsewhere around the time of Napoleon. It even developed in the church courts. Scandinavia, like England, does not trace its civil procedure to the Romans but nonetheless has loser-pays."
regards, alexander.
-- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.)
> Hyman Rosen wrote: > [...] >> Do you believe that at the conclusion of a case, one party pays >> the attorney fees of another unless a court instructs them not >> to do so? How odd.
The article confirms that the United States does not have a loser-pays system so it is odd (but sadly not unusual) that absent documentation your crony would claim that SFLC paid attorney's fees.
> On 6/17/2011 9:15 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > Hyman Rosen wrote: > > [...] > >> Do you believe that at the conclusion of a case, one party pays > >> the attorney fees of another unless a court instructs them not > >> to do so? How odd.
> The article confirms that the United States does not have a > loser-pays system so it is odd (but sadly not unusual) that > absent documentation your crony would claim that SFLC paid > attorney's fees.
SFLC claimed "settlements" without documentation and you were agreeingly happy with such claims. Why the difference now, Hyman?
regards, alexander.
-- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.)
> SFLC claimed "settlements" without documentation and you were
> agreeingly happy with such claims. Why the difference now, Hyman?
Because a statement by one of the parties to a suit is different from a statement by a third party who has no inside knowledge of the case. Best Buy did not say that they had been paid attorney's fee. SFLC did not say that it had paid attorney's fees.
> On 6/17/2011 9:35 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > SFLC claimed "settlements" without documentation and you were > > agreeingly happy with such claims. Why the difference now, Hyman?
> Because . . . [blah blah]
From google:
"Another BusyBox victory for SFLC - SPTechWeb 7 Mar 2008 ... High-Gain Antennas had been sued by the SFLC in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of BusyBox ... www.sysmannews.com/SearchResult/31807 - Cached BusyBox Developers Agree To End GPL Lawsuit Against Verizon ... 17 Mar 2008 ... The Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) today announced that ... Actiontec has agreed to appoint an Open Source Compliance Officer within its ... www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2008/.../busybox-verizon/ - Cached - Similar BusyBox Developers and Xterasys Corporation Agree to Settle GPL ... 17 Dec 2007 ... BusyBox is a lightweight set of standard Unix utilities ... www.softwarefreedom.org/.../busybox-xterasys-settlement/ - Cached - Similar Show more results from softwarefreedom.org BusyBox developers reach settlement with Xterasys 18 Dec 2007 ... In an announced yesterday, the SFLC reveals that the BusyBox ... appoint an internal open source compliance officer to oversee the company's ... arstechnica.com/.../busybox-developers-reach-settlement-with-xterasys.ars - Cached Best Buy, Samsung, And Westinghouse Named In SFLC Suit Today [LWN.net] 14 Dec 2009 ... The SFLC confirmed BusyBox violations in nearly 20 separate products .... to appoint a GPL compliance officer so it doesn't happen again. ... lwn.net/Articles/366467/ - Cached - Similar"
Stop being utter idiot, Hyman.
regards, alexander.
-- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.)
>> On 6/17/2011 9:35 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: >>> SFLC claimed "settlements" without documentation and you were >> > agreeingly happy with such claims. Why the difference now, Hyman?
>> Because . . . [blah blah]
> From google:
> (SFLC) today announced > the SFLC reveals > The SFLC confirmed
> Stop being utter idiot, Hyman.
A statement by one of the parties to a suit is different from a statement by a third party who has no inside knowledge of the case.
-- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.)
-- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards
> On 6/16/2011 3:57 PM, RJack wrote: >> On 6/15/2011 3:54 PM, Hyman Rosen wrote: >>> On 6/15/2011 3:45 PM, RJack wrote: >>>> On 6/15/2011 3:32 PM, Hyman Rosen wrote: >>>>> On 6/15/2011 3:17 PM, RJack wrote: >>>>>> The GPL license was dead the day it was stillborn.
>>>>> The GPL is in wide use, so you are wrong.
>>>> Yep. And pigs hold hands while flapping their wings ROFL. >>>> Reality will eventually bite you in the ass Hyman. LMAO.
>> Yeah -- dismissal WITH PREJUDICE and forking over $75,000 in >> attorneys' fees to Best Buy Inc. counsel ia a real victory Hyman.
> According to the document that AT posted, > <http://terekhov.de/204.pdf>: Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil > Procedure 41, plaintiffs Software Freedom Conservancy, Inc. and Erik > Anderson and defendant BEST BUY CO.,INC hereby dismiss their claims > against each other from within this action WITH PREJUDICE with > respect to any past claims for certain Insignia Blu-ray products > (NS-WBRDVD, NS-BRDVD3, NS-BRHTIB, NS-BRDVD3-CA, NS-WBRDVD2, > NS-BRDVD4, NS-BRDVD4-CA, NS-BRDVD, NS-2BRDVD, and NS-BDLIVB01) and > without costs to any party. Plaintiffs maintain this action against > all other defendants.
> Why do you claim, in contradiction to this document, that SFLC paid > any costs to Best Buy?
If you don't understand the difference between court costs and and attorney fees, then I don't think you're qualified to comment on these matters.
> On 6/17/2011 8:47 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: >> The contradiction would be if the court would order not to pay >> attorney's fees.
> Do you believe that at the conclusion of a case, one party pays the > attorney fees of another unless a court instructs them not to do so? > How odd.
How else do you believe a badly losing plaintiff gets a winning defendant to agree to a stipulated Rule 41 voluntary dismissal "WITH PREDJUDICE"?
> On 6/17/2011 8:55 AM, Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 6/17/2011 8:47 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > >> The contradiction would be if the court would order not to pay > >> attorney's fees.
> > Do you believe that at the conclusion of a case, one party pays the > > attorney fees of another unless a court instructs them not to do so? > > How odd.
> How else do you believe a badly losing plaintiff gets a winning > defendant to agree to a stipulated Rule 41 voluntary dismissal "WITH > PREDJUDICE"?
David Leichtman
"Defendant Best Buy Co., Inc. represented by David Leichtman Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi, LLP (NYC) 601 Lexington Avenue, Suite 3400 New York, NY 10022 (212) 980-7400 Fax: (212) 980-7499 Email: dleicht...@rkmc.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED"
(TERMINATED: 06/14/2011)
strikes again...
The PACER reports:
"06/30/2011 207 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by David Leichtman on behalf of ZYXEL Communications Inc. (Leichtman, David) (Entered: 06/30/2011)"
regards, alexander.
-- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.)
> "06/30/2011 207 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by David Leichtman on behalf of > ZYXEL Communications Inc. (Leichtman, David) (Entered: 06/30/2011)"
in contrast to (from PACER):
---- 05/19/2011 197 MOTION for Michael Andrew Spiegel to Withdraw as Attorney. Document filed by Software Freedom Conservancy, Inc..(Spiegel, Michael) (Entered: 05/19/2011) 06/10/2011 202 MOTION for Mishi Choudhary to Withdraw as Attorney. Document filed by Erik Andersen, Software Freedom Conservancy, Inc..(Ravicher, Daniel) (Entered: 06/10/2011) 06/20/2011 205 MOTION for Aaron Kyle Williamson to Withdraw as Attorney. Document filed by Erik Andersen, Software Freedom Conservancy, Inc..(Ravicher, Daniel) (Entered: 06/20/2011)
<chuckles>
regards, alexander.
-- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.)
07/19/2011 208 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Shira A. Scheindlin from Daniel B. Ravicher dated 7/15/2011 re: Counsel request a pre-motion conference in contemplation of filing motion for summary judgment. ENDORSEMENT: Request for a pre-motion conference is granted and scheduled for July 28, 2011 at 3:30 p.m. So Ordered. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 7/18/2011) (jfe) (Entered: 07/20/2011)
-- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.)
> 07/19/2011 208 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Shira A. > Scheindlin from Daniel B. Ravicher dated 7/15/2011 re: Counsel > request a pre-motion conference in contemplation of filing motion > for summary judgment. ENDORSEMENT: Request for a pre-motion > conference is granted and scheduled for July 28, 2011 at 3:30 p.m. So > Ordered. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 7/18/2011) (jfe) > (Entered: 07/20/2011)
The SFC has abandoned the theory that Andersen's BusyBox contribution formed a derivative work. They now claim copyright in BusyBox as a "compilation":
"Mr. Andersen is entitled to copyright for the code he wrote, including the edits he made to code contributed by others. Computer Assoc. Int'l, Inc. v. Altai, Inc., 982 F.2d 693, 702 (2d Cir. 1992). Mr. Andersen is also entitled to copyright for his compilation of each BusyBox version he released as maintainer because the Copyright Act protects 'a work formed by the collection and assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work. of authorship .... 17 U.S.C. 101, 103; Feist Pub'lns, Inc., 499 U.S. at 362.
Mr. Andersen registered his copyright in version 0.60.3 of BusyBox. Dkt. 165-1 at 2. This registration covers both the specific new code he wrote for that version and also the version as a whole since he as the project maintainer -- was responsible for its "collection and assembling." Mr. Andersen's copyrights in later versions of BusyBox, while unregistered, are still a valid basis for the seeking of injunctive relief. 17 U.S.C. 412 (listing remedies for which registration is a prerequisite and omitting injunctive relief)."
The SFC claims that although the BusyBox compilations are unregistered, the court should award injunctive relief. Apparently the SFC is utterly incapable of grasping the principle that in a court of law, a "remedy" ( 412) is provided for an *underlying* cause of action -- in this case "copyright infringement" which, of course, *does* require registration.
Dan Ravicher's claims typify the crackpot legal theories of Richard Stallman, Eben Moglen and devoted cult members of the GPL (e.g. DAK, Alan, Hyman etc.)
RJack <u...@example.net> writes: > On 7/20/2011 2:54 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: >> This is hilarious:
>> 07/19/2011 208 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Shira A. >> Scheindlin from Daniel B. Ravicher dated 7/15/2011 re: Counsel >> request a pre-motion conference in contemplation of filing motion >> for summary judgment. ENDORSEMENT: Request for a pre-motion >> conference is granted and scheduled for July 28, 2011 at 3:30 p.m. So >> Ordered. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 7/18/2011) (jfe) >> (Entered: 07/20/2011)
> The SFC has abandoned the theory that Andersen's BusyBox contribution > formed a derivative work.
Huh?
> They now claim copyright in BusyBox as a "compilation":
> "Mr. Andersen is entitled to copyright for the code he wrote, including > the edits he made to code contributed by others. Computer Assoc. Int'l, > Inc. v. Altai, Inc., 982 F.2d 693, 702 (2d Cir. 1992). Mr. Andersen is > also entitled to copyright for his compilation of each BusyBox version > he released as maintainer because the Copyright Act protects 'a work > formed by the collection and assembling of preexisting materials or of > data that are selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the > resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work. of authorship > .... 17 U.S.C. §§ 101, 103; Feist Pub'lns, Inc., 499 U.S. at 362.
I read "Mr Andersen is _also_ entitled to copyright for his compilation". Is your reading comprehension really that bad?
>> On 7/20/2011 2:54 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: >>> This is hilarious:
>>> 07/19/2011 208 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Shira A. >>> Scheindlin from Daniel B. Ravicher dated 7/15/2011 re: Counsel >>> request a pre-motion conference in contemplation of filing >>> motion for summary judgment. ENDORSEMENT: Request for a >>> pre-motion conference is granted and scheduled for July 28, 2011 >>> at 3:30 p.m. So Ordered. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on >>> 7/18/2011) (jfe) (Entered: 07/20/2011)
>>> http://terekhov.de/208.pdf > I read "Mr Andersen is _also_ entitled to copyright for his > compilation". Is your reading comprehension really that bad?
Since you obviously didn't follow what happened to Andersen when he tried that derivative work theory with respect to the Best Buy Inc. I'll refer you to:
******************************************************************** "...However, the evidence regarding Mr. Andersen’s preexisting work on BusyBox, prior to the registration, consists of his own email that reveals that he was affixing copyright marks on BusyBox code for his employer. (Roberg-Perez Decl. Ex. H.) A copyright in that preexisting BusyBox code vested in his employer, Lineo, as a work for hire. 17 U.S.C. § 101. Mr. Andersen simply did not retain copyright ownership in his preexisting work on BusyBox, and his statements to the contrary are not consistent with the facts. [n.10]...
If all the authors of a collective work are not named, the registration only reaches individual work that was written by the identified author. Id. at 94-95. In this case, Mr. Andersen’s Certificate of Registration identifies the registered work as “Title of Work: BusyBox, v.0.60.3” (Dkt. No. 165, Ex. 1.) But, Mr. Andersen also admitted that 25 other authors contributed to v.0.60.3. (Roberg-Perez Decl. Ex. D.) Referring to those 25 people, Mr. Andersen admitted that “every one of these people has some contribution to some extent, small or large, that is incorporated into BusyBox 0.60.3.”
"[n.10] Plaintiffs made the same misstatements when moving for a default judgment against Westinghouse Digital Electronics, LLC. See Dkt. 113 at 6, n 4, (“. . . since Mr. Anderson ‘is the owner of the copyright of both the derivative and pre-existing work, the registration certificate relating to the derivative work in this circumstance will suffice to permit it to maintain an action for infringement based on defendants’ infringement of pre-existing work.”)” and Dkt. No. 115 at 1-2 (referring to work beginning in 1999 and saying “I . . . retained all ownership of the copyrights therein.”) Plaintiffs sought and obtained an injunction and turnover order for “all articles containing BusyBox.” (Dkt. No. 113 at 9; and Dkt. No. 131 at 9, 15.) In doing so, they did not advise that Mr. Andersen’s former employer, Lineo, had copyrights in Mr. Andersen’s earlier work on BusyBox, that 25 other “authors” contributed to v.0.60.3 and that there are other, subsequent versions of BusyBox such as v.1.2.1, which Mr. Kuhn claims he knew about in November, 2009, seven months before moving for the default judgment." ***********************************************************************
