Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

[Hyman Rosen]

On 4/12/2010 10:37 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> Now go read 17 U.S.C. § 501

That simply says that infringing copyright makes one a
copyright infringer, and that a rights holder may sue.

> including § 411

That says that you have to register a work before you can
bring a civil action about it.

> Hint: the only registered Busybox copyright allegedly owned by
> Plaintiffs (actually only Erik) according to the utter fraudulent
> registration is BusyBox v. 0.60.3.

The complaint states
<http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2009/busybox-complaint-2009-12-14.pdf>
    31. Mr. Andersen is, and at all relevant times has been,
    a copyright owner under United States copyright law in the
    FOSS software program known as BusyBox. See, e.g., “BusyBox,
    v.0.60.3.”, Copyright Reg. No. TX0006869051 (10/2/2008).
    Plaintiff Software Freedom Conservancy is the corporate home
    for the BusyBox project and the designated copyright
    enforcement agent for Mr. Andersen with respect to BusyBox.

This means that Erik Andersen has at least this version registered,
but the use of "e.g." in the complaint may mean that he has other
versions registered. I have no independent knowledge of this.

> Got it now?

There is nothing to "get". If the court finds that it cannot act
because defendants have infringed upon a non-registered version,
the plaintiffs can simply register that version and refile the
claim. We know this from the SimplexGrinnell court decision.

<http://www.scribd.com/doc/14760460/Simplexgrinnell-v-Integrated-040809>
    39. ... Provided that SimplexGrinnell register its copyrights,
    therefore, should ISPI engage in further infringement of
    versions not covered by this injunction, injunctive relief,
    and possible damages in significant amount, may follow. There
    is thus an adequate deterrent to future abuse by ISPI of
    copyrighted materials.