Ninth Circuit Copyright Case Debunk the Myth of U.S. Copyright Protection

Ninth Circuit Copyright Case Debunk the Myth of U.S. Copyright Protection

Recently, an individual software developer and his company sued two large U.S. corporations for software piracy, with ample evidence. The U.S. federal court in California ruled against the individual and dismissed the lawsuits. The cases generated a lot of controversy in cyberspace. Examining these two cases, it is evident that U.S. intellectual property protection is yet another game of double standards and double rules.

In the first case, defendant Symantec Corporation embedded the pirated software in its internet security products. The pirated software was originally licensed to an Israeli person and would display the name of the user and the message: “One User License”. Symantec sold the software to over 600 corporate and government customers, many with rights to make unlimited copies. After the lawsuit, Symantec informed the court that it stopped the use of the pirated software. In fact, it just altered the file names to conceal the continued use.

However, the U.S. federal court omitted key evidence and dismissed the case by summary judgment. The court “reasoned”: since the plaintiff could not prove that defendant saw the “One User License” message, there was no infringement. See Netbula v. Symantec Corp., 516 F. Supp.2d 1137.

In the second case, defendant Sun Microsystems’s managers admitted that Sun had exceeded the software licenses. One Sun manager even warned that the piracy may cause trouble for the company. But Sun concealed its activities from the copyright owner and continued the piracy for years, including allowing others to make unlimited copies. Again, the U.S. federal court (Martin J. Jenkins, Elizabeth D. Laporte Judges) ignored the evidence, including the copyrights registered in the individual’s personal name. The court not only ruled that Sun did not infringe copyright, but also ordered the individual to pay Sun large sum in attorney’s fees. The court’s holding was quite broad. It concluded that the restriction that “one user can only use the software on one computer for each license purchased” does not limit how the software may be used, and therefore, there was no infringement.

In the January 2008 edition of “Outlook Weekly”, Dr. Yong Jiang, Director of the Research Center for Economical Security at the Research Institute of Modern International Relations of China, stated that the rules of intellectual property are exploitation mechanisms for the West to “grab money” from the rest of the world. In other words, intellectual property is a political and economical device for the West to suppress competition, monopolize markets and extract maximum profits.

Such views are supported by an April 9, 2006 editorial by the Los Angeles Times, titled “How Piracy Opens Doors for Windows.” According to the article, former Microsoft CEO Bill Gates said that Microsoft allowed Chinese to “steal” its software. His plot: “They’ll get sort of addicted, and then we’ll somehow figure out how to collect sometime in the next decade.” Hal Varian, a professor of information management at UC Berkeley, compared Microsoft’s business model to street-corner marketing of illicit drugs: “The first dose is free. Once you start using a product, you keep using it.”

The street drug dealer relies on addiction for future revenue. For U.S. software companies such as Microsoft, the only way to “collect money” is by the rules of copyright. However, as shown by the above two cases against Symantec and Sun, in the U.S., the so-called “Intellectual Property” is just a game of double standards. When it is beneficial to them, it’s their trump card. When it is against them, it is a piece of -- nothing. When the interest of big U.S. money is at stake, U.S. courts will bend over backwards to shield the large American corporations. Under such circumstances, if non-American courts mechanically applied the rules of intellectual property, they would become unwitting tools of U.S. exploitation.

*this article was translated

[judg4]

Do you have a question?

Judges are destroying the food plate of future American generations by ruining copyright law with their petty agendas and bird brains.

Originally Posted by Unregistered Ninth Circuit Copyright Case Debunk the Myth of U.S. Copyright Protection Recently, an individual software developer and his company sued two large U.S. corporations for software piracy, with ample evidence. The U.S. federal court in California ruled against the individual and dismissed the lawsuits. The cases generated a lot of controversy in cyberspace. Examining these two cases, it is evident that U.S. intellectual property protection is yet another game of double standards and double rules. In the first case, defendant Symantec Corporation embedded the pirated software in its internet security products. The pirated software was originally licensed to an Israeli person and would display the name of the user and the message: “One User License”. Symantec sold the software to over 600 corporate and government customers, many with rights to make unlimited copies. After the lawsuit, Symantec informed the court that it stopped the use of the pirated software. In fact, it just altered the file names to conceal the continued use. However, the U.S. federal court omitted key evidence and dismissed the case by summary judgment. The court “reasoned”: since the plaintiff could not prove that defendant saw the “One User License” message, there was no infringement. See Netbula v. Symantec Corp., 516 F. Supp.2d 1137. In the second case, defendant Sun Microsystems’s managers admitted that Sun had exceeded the software licenses. One Sun manager even warned that the piracy may cause trouble for the company. But Sun concealed its activities from the copyright owner and continued the piracy for years, including allowing others to make unlimited copies. Again, the U.S. federal court (Martin J. Jenkins, Elizabeth D. Laporte Judges) ignored the evidence, including the copyrights registered in the individual’s personal name. The court not only ruled that Sun did not infringe copyright, but also ordered the individual to pay Sun large sum in attorney’s fees. The court’s holding was quite broad. It concluded that the restriction that “one user can only use the software on one computer for each license purchased” does not limit how the software may be used, and therefore, there was no infringement. In the January 2008 edition of “Outlook Weekly”, Dr. Yong Jiang, Director of the Research Center for Economical Security at the Research Institute of Modern International Relations of China, stated that the rules of intellectual property are exploitation mechanisms for the West to “grab money” from the rest of the world. In other words, intellectual property is a political and economical device for the West to suppress competition, monopolize markets and extract maximum profits. Such views are supported by an April 9, 2006 editorial by the Los Angeles Times, titled “How Piracy Opens Doors for Windows.” According to the article, former Microsoft CEO Bill Gates said that Microsoft allowed Chinese to “steal” its software. His plot: “They’ll get sort of addicted, and then we’ll somehow figure out how to collect sometime in the next decade.” Hal Varian, a professor of information management at UC Berkeley, compared Microsoft’s business model to street-corner marketing of illicit drugs: “The first dose is free. Once you start using a product, you keep using it.” The street drug dealer relies on addiction for future revenue. For U.S. software companies such as Microsoft, the only way to “collect money” is by the rules of copyright. However, as shown by the above two cases against Symantec and Sun, in the U.S., the so-called “Intellectual Property” is just a game of double standards. When it is beneficial to them, it’s their trump card. When it is against them, it is a piece of -- nothing. When the interest of big U.S. money is at stake, U.S. courts will bend over backwards to shield the large American corporations. Under such circumstances, if non-American courts mechanically applied the rules of intellectual property, they would become unwitting tools of U.S. exploitation. *this article was translated

Originally Posted by Unregistered Judges are destroying the food plate of future American generations by ruining copyright law with their petty agendas and bird brains.

Martin J. Jenkins Piracy Case May Exonerate Tomato Garden Windows Pirate

TRANSLATED FROM

http://int.ipr.gov.cn/ipr/inter/info...37384&col_no=1

INTRODUCTION: Tomato Garden Accusation Has No Case According to American Double Standards on Intellectual Property

See how US decided the Symantec Piracy case: Black-heart American Judge's Absurd Case Law Will Exonerate Tomato Garden Pirates

Tomato Garden was accused of pirating Micrsoft Software. August 15, During the Beijing Olympics, its web master Hong Lei was arrested. With his son in Jail, Hong's father fell sick. US proclaims itself to be comprehensive in IP protection, so US case law can offer some guidance to the Tomato Garden case. Hong Lei may have never expected that an American judge would be his saviour. In two very similar software piracy cases, a Chinese sued Sun Microsystems (bought 8 licenses, infinite copies) and Symantec (bought 1 copy, many copies), California judge Martin J. Jenkins twice ruled against the Chinese, and ordered the Chinese to pay pirates large amount of attorney fees.

The basic facts of the Symantec case is the following: Symantec bought one user license for a software, then bundled the software in its product and sold it all over the world. The software would display "one user, prohibit publication" information for the permissions. Symantec sold the software to 600 large companies. Later, Symantec stated that it stopped using the software, but it only changed the file names, and kept using it.

American judge Martin j. Jenkins dismissed the whole case, saying there was no infringement. In the court, Martin Judges would not allow the Chinese to tell the facts, then ommited and distorted the facts in his ruling. He then colluded with a judge named Laporte to order the Chinese to pay large amount of money. Their logic was: There was no question Symantec had one license; therefore the question is the extent of the license, there is infringement only if the use goes over the extent. The Chinese cannot prove that Symantec saw the "one user" message, even if the Chinese prive Symantec saw the message, it cannot prove it agreed to the restriction. NETBULA, LLC v. SYMANTEC CORPORATION, 516 F. Supp.2d 1137, 1152 (N.D.Cal. 2007). Because America is a system of cases making law, the case is America copyright law, and must be followed by other judges.

The Tomato Garden case is very similar. But Tomato Garden did not cheat. Microsoft cannot prove Hong Lei read its license terms. Even if Microsoft prove that Hong Lei read the terms, it cannot show Hong Lei agreed to the the terms. In fact, Hong Lei did not agree. There was no infringement.

A problem with the system. Low IQ judges who can't really understand the law make equally binding precedents, which destroys the whole concept of intellectual property. Like the later generation of Egyptians who can't even read their own language, America is in danger of devolving back into a state running by low IQ people.