RJack
2010-04-15 13:43:16 UTC
Now for my prediction for the resolution of Software Freedom
Conservancy, Inc. v. Best Buy Co., Inc. et. al.
I predict that Judge Scheindlin will grant a Motion to Dismiss
pursuant to F.R.C.P. Rule 12(b)(1). She will dismiss the lawsuit because
the plaintiffs lack Article III standing.
The definitive case concerning Article III "case or controversy"
standing is Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992).
In Lujan the Supreme Court held:
"Over the years, our cases have established that the irreducible
constitutional minimum of standing contains three elements: First, the
plaintiff must have suffered an "injury in fact" — an invasion of a
legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized, see
id., at 756; Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 508 (1975); Sierra Club v.
Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 740-741, n. 16 (1972); [n.1] and (b) "actual or
imminent, not `conjectural' or `hypothetical,' "Whitmore, supra, at 155
(quoting Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102 (1983)). Second, there
must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct
complained of — the injury has to be "fairly . . . trace[able] to the
challenged action of the defendant, and not . . . th[e] result [of] the
independent action of some third party not before the court." Simon v.
Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Org., 426 U.S. 26, 41-42 (1976). Third,
it must be "likely," as opposed to merely "speculative," that the injury
will be "redressed by a favorable decision." Id., at 38, 43.".
We see three requirements 1) injury in fact ; 2) causal connection 3)
redressibility.
What is the alleged injury in fact to the plaintiffs that is "concrete
and particularized" and not "conjectural or hypothetical" in the current
controversy?
The Complaint claims:
"34. Plaintiffs are also entitled to permanent injunctive relief
pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 502 and to an order impounding any and all
infringing materials pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 503. Plaintiffs have no
adequate remedy at law for each Defendant's wrongful conduct because,
among other things, (a) Plaintiffs’ copyrights are unique and valuable
property whose market value is impossible to assess, thus causing
irreparable harm, (b) each Defendant’s infringement harms Plaintiffs
such that Plaintiffs could not be made whole by any monetary award, and
(c) each Defendant's wrongful conduct, and the resulting damage to
Plaintiffs, is continuing."
The statement ". . . (a) Plaintiffs’ copyrights are unique and valuable
property whose market value is impossible to assess, . . ."
automatically establishes the fact that any alleged injury is
"conjectural and hypothetical". The SFLC lawyers have pleaded their
clients right out of Court.
Note: Article III standing is distinct from legislatively conferred
statutory standing.
Sincerely,
RJack :)
Conservancy, Inc. v. Best Buy Co., Inc. et. al.
I predict that Judge Scheindlin will grant a Motion to Dismiss
pursuant to F.R.C.P. Rule 12(b)(1). She will dismiss the lawsuit because
the plaintiffs lack Article III standing.
The definitive case concerning Article III "case or controversy"
standing is Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992).
In Lujan the Supreme Court held:
"Over the years, our cases have established that the irreducible
constitutional minimum of standing contains three elements: First, the
plaintiff must have suffered an "injury in fact" — an invasion of a
legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized, see
id., at 756; Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 508 (1975); Sierra Club v.
Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 740-741, n. 16 (1972); [n.1] and (b) "actual or
imminent, not `conjectural' or `hypothetical,' "Whitmore, supra, at 155
(quoting Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102 (1983)). Second, there
must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct
complained of — the injury has to be "fairly . . . trace[able] to the
challenged action of the defendant, and not . . . th[e] result [of] the
independent action of some third party not before the court." Simon v.
Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Org., 426 U.S. 26, 41-42 (1976). Third,
it must be "likely," as opposed to merely "speculative," that the injury
will be "redressed by a favorable decision." Id., at 38, 43.".
We see three requirements 1) injury in fact ; 2) causal connection 3)
redressibility.
What is the alleged injury in fact to the plaintiffs that is "concrete
and particularized" and not "conjectural or hypothetical" in the current
controversy?
The Complaint claims:
"34. Plaintiffs are also entitled to permanent injunctive relief
pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 502 and to an order impounding any and all
infringing materials pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 503. Plaintiffs have no
adequate remedy at law for each Defendant's wrongful conduct because,
among other things, (a) Plaintiffs’ copyrights are unique and valuable
property whose market value is impossible to assess, thus causing
irreparable harm, (b) each Defendant’s infringement harms Plaintiffs
such that Plaintiffs could not be made whole by any monetary award, and
(c) each Defendant's wrongful conduct, and the resulting damage to
Plaintiffs, is continuing."
The statement ". . . (a) Plaintiffs’ copyrights are unique and valuable
property whose market value is impossible to assess, . . ."
automatically establishes the fact that any alleged injury is
"conjectural and hypothetical". The SFLC lawyers have pleaded their
clients right out of Court.
Note: Article III standing is distinct from legislatively conferred
statutory standing.
Sincerely,
RJack :)
