Rjack
2009-03-03 12:00:56 UTC
The SFLC stated in their FSF v. Cisco Complaint that:
"47. Plaintiff is also entitled to 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. Plaintiff has no adequate
remedy at law for Defendant’s wrongful conduct because, among other
things, (a) Plaintiff’s copyrights are unique and valuable assets
whose market value is impossible to assess, (b) Defendant’s
infringement harms Plaintiff such that Plaintiff could not be made
whole by any monetary award, and (c) Defendant’s wrongful conduct,
and the resulting damage to Plaintiff, is continuing."
The Supreme Court has explictly ruled that Article III
Constitutional standing requires that an "injury in fact" occur that
is not "conjectural or hypothetical":
"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))"; Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife,
504 U.S. 555 (1992).
The SFLC pleading is of moronic proportions:
"Plaintiff’s copyrights are unique and valuable assets
whose market value is impossible to assess".
Now that's a real "concrete and particularized" injury that is not
"conjectural or hypothetical" isn't it?
ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL
Sincerely,
Rjack :)
"47. Plaintiff is also entitled to 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. Plaintiff has no adequate
remedy at law for Defendant’s wrongful conduct because, among other
things, (a) Plaintiff’s copyrights are unique and valuable assets
whose market value is impossible to assess, (b) Defendant’s
infringement harms Plaintiff such that Plaintiff could not be made
whole by any monetary award, and (c) Defendant’s wrongful conduct,
and the resulting damage to Plaintiff, is continuing."
The Supreme Court has explictly ruled that Article III
Constitutional standing requires that an "injury in fact" occur that
is not "conjectural or hypothetical":
"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))"; Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife,
504 U.S. 555 (1992).
The SFLC pleading is of moronic proportions:
"Plaintiff’s copyrights are unique and valuable assets
whose market value is impossible to assess".
Now that's a real "concrete and particularized" injury that is not
"conjectural or hypothetical" isn't it?
ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL
Sincerely,
Rjack :)