Tim Smith wrote:
> In article <mpmdnbx8cLgoCMbVnZ2dnUVZ_rvinZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, rjack
> <robjack@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>> Note that 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) are connected by "or",
not
>>> "and". Do you have reason to believe this dismissal was not under
>>> 41(a)(1)(A)(i)?
>>>
>>>
>> Since no mutual stipulations under 41(a)ii are to be found, it's a good
bet
>> the unilateral 41(a)1 is being used by the plaintiffs.
>
> So? Why do you think it significant that no stipulation was filed? If
the
> prerequisites of 41(a)(1)(A)(i) were met, why would they not use that
> section, and make the simpler, smaller, filing?
>
Except for *self-serving* statements issued by SFLC we can only guess as
to
what the motives were for dismissals under 41(a)(1)(A)(i).
It is most plausible that the defendants simply said to the SFLC, "Dismiss
or we
will file a Rule 12 Motion to Dismiss" and collect our attorney fees and
costs.
Even an incompetent defense attorney would know that the SFLC pleadings
are
defective on their face due to lack of Copyright Office registration of
the
allegedly infringed works. The lack of a public settlement stipulation by
both
parties reinforces this scenario.
The SFLC will NEVER, NEVER, NEVER allow a Federal Court to review the GPL
license on the merits. They'll dismiss WITH PREJUDICE before allowing a
meaningful court review to occur.
Sincerely,
Rjack :)
-- It [The Copyright Act] provides that "no action for infringement of
the
copyright in any United States work shall be instituted until
preregistration or
registration of the copyright claim has been made in accordance with this
title." . . . Whether this requirement is jurisdictional is not up for
debate
in this Circuit. On two recent occasions, we have squarely held that it
is."
In re Literary Works in Electronic Databases Copyright Litigation 509 F.3d
116
(2nd Cir. 2007) --
|
