On 3/7/2011 5:49 PM, RJack wrote:
On 3/7/2011 4:08 PM, RJack wrote:
Best Buy Inc. has just filed a 28 page (available on PACER)
Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for
Preliminary Injunction.
Let the the fireworks begin!
Hmmmm... Overreach ?
From the Best Buy Inc. Memorandum in Opposition:
Blowhard Erik Andersen and his fraud:
********************************************************************
"...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."
***********************************************************************
The fraudulent copyright application may subject Erik Andersen to
liability in a criminal prosecution for three offenses. See:
17 USC Sec. 506. Criminal offenses--
...
(c) Fraudulent Copyright Notice.--
Any person who, with fraudulent intent, places on any article a notice
of copyright or words of the same purport that such person knows to be
false, or who, with fraudulent intent, publicly distributes or imports
for public distribution any article bearing such notice or words that
such person knows to be false, shall be fined not more than $2,500.
(d) Fraudulent Removal of Copyright Notice.--
Any person who, with fraudulent intent, removes or alters any notice of
copyright appearing on a copy of a copyrighted work shall be fined not
more than $2,500.
(e) False Representation.--
Any person who knowingly makes a false representation
of a material fact in the application for copyright
registration provided for by section 409, or in any
written statement filed in connection with the application,
shall be fined not more than $2,500.
Sincerely,
RJack :)
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
