On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 12:45:59 -0700, Tim Smith wrote: > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > Hyman Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> The SFLC continues to file cases on behalf of their clients, >> who can therefore be assumed to be satisfied with the service >> they are receiving. > > What's puzzling is that rjack appears to be right about one very > important thing, though. Doing a search of copyright registrations, I > can't find one for Busybox (or for anything else by the people listed in > the lawsuits as the copyright owners). > > It also doesn't appear the Busybox counts as a non-US Berne work, and so > registration is a prerequisite to suit. > > Can anyone explain what is going on here? Is the search at > www.copyright.gov not up to date? Are the defendants not bothering to > check because they just assume the work must have been registered? Is > Busybox actually a non-US Berne work?
I'm surprised Fisher Price hasn't squawked about the name. Their's is Busy Box (2 words) though I think? -- Moshe Goldfarb Collector of soaps from around the globe. Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots: http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/ _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
