More From This User
Related Docuements
EFF: OPG MSJ
From EFF
Diebold Fraud
Diebold, the maker of ATM's and voting machines has been ordered to pay civil...
From rebeltraders
EFF: OPG%20v
From EFF
EFF: OPG%20v
From EFF
EFF: Seltzer
From EFF
C-03-04913 JF PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FORSUMMARY JUDGMENT
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728Cindy A. Cohn, Esq. (SBN 145997)Wendy Seltzer, Esq.ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION454 Shotwell StreetSan Francisco, CA 94110Telephone: (415) 436-9333 x108Facsimile: (415) 436-9993Alan Korn, Esq. (SBN 167933)LAW OFFICE OF ALAN KORN1840 Woolsey StreetBerkeley, CA 94703Telephone: (510) 548-7300Facsimile: (510) 540-4821Attorneys for Plaintiff ONLINE POLICY GROUPJennifer Stisa Granick, Esq. (SBN 168423)STANFORD LAW SCHOOLCYBERLAW CLINIC559 Nathan Abbott WayStanford, CA 94305-8610Telephone: (650) 724-0014Facsimile: (650) 723-4426Attorneys for PlaintiffsNELSON CHU PAVLOSKY and LUKETHOMAS SMITH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ONLINE POLICY GROUP, NELSON CHUPAVLOSKY, and LUKE THOMAS SMITH,Plaintiffs,v.DIEBOLD, INCORPORATED, and DIEBOLDELECTION SYSTEMS, INCORPORATED,Defendants.)))))))))))))No. C-03-04913 JF
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TODEFENDANTS’ MOTION FORSUMMARY JUDGMENT
Date: February 9, 2004Time: 9:00 a.m.Courtroom: 3
i
C-03-04913 JF PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................1II. STATEMENT OF FACTS..........................................................................................................2III. ARGUMENT..............................................................................................................................3A. Diebold’s Belated Retraction of Legal Threats Does Not Moot the Case..............................31. Live Issues of Damages, Costs and Attorneys Fees for Diebold’s Past Conduct Remain toBe Determined....................................................................................................................42. Defendant Has Not Met its Heavy Burden of Showing That Plaintiffs’ Claim forDeclaratory Relief Is Moot.................................................................................................53. Diebold Cannot Unilaterally Moot the Case Through Voluntary Cessation of its IllegalActs.....................................................................................................................................7B. Fair Use Can Be Decided on Summary Judgment..................................................................8C. Diebold Knowingly Misrepresented Infringement................................................................101. DMCA 512(f) Is Properly Applied Here to Remedy Diebold’s Misuse of the DMCA....102. Diebold Knowingly Misrepresented that the E-Mail Archive Was Infringing.................113. There Is No Support for Diebold’s Claim That ISPs of Individual Linkers Have PotentialCopyright Liability............................................................................................................13D. Diebold Threatened the ISPs with Litigation........................................................................16E. Diebold’s Threats of Sham Litigation Are Not Privileged....................................................16F. Summary Judgment Is Appropriate on All Three of Plaintiffs’ Claims................................171. Diebold Tortiously Interfered with Plaintiffs’ Internet Hosting Contracts.......................172. Diebold Misused Any Copyright it Had............................................................................183. Diebold Misused the DMCA.............................................................................................20IV. CONCLUSION.........................................................................................................................20
ii
C-03-04913 JF PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
TABLE OF AUTHORITIESCases
Board of Education v. Pico
, 457 U.S. 853 (1982).............................................................................12
Bruzzone v. Miller Brewing Co.
202 U.S.P.Q. 809, 1979 WL 1070 (N.D. Cal. 1979).......................9
California Transport v. Trucking Unlimited,
404 U.S. 508 (1972)..................................................17
Capitol Cities Media, Inc. v. Chester
, 797 F.2d 1164 (3d Cir. 1986)...............................................12
Cardtoons, L.C. v. Major League Baseball Players Association
, 208 F.3d 885 (10th Cir. 2000)....17
Carey v. Brown
, 447 U.S. 455 (1980)...............................................................................................12
Comm. for the First Amendment v. Campbell
, 962 F.2d 1517 (10th Cir. 1992).................................4
Ellis v. Brotherhood of Ry., Airline and S.S. Clerks
, 466 U.S. 435 (1984).........................................4
Foad Consulting Group, Inc. v. Musil Govan Azzalino
, 270 F.3d 821 (9th Cir. 2001)......................7
Fonovisa, Inc. v. Cherry Auction, Inc.
, 76 F.2d 259 (9th Cir. 1996)................................................15
Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc.
, 528 U.S. 167 (2001).........................7
FTC v. Affordable Media, LLC
, 179 F.3d 1228 (9th Cir. 1999).........................................................8
GATX/Airlog Co. v. U.S. District Court
, 192 F.3d 1304 (9th Cir. 1999)............................................3
Harper & Row, Inc. v. Nation Enters.
, 471 U.S. 539 (1985)..............................................................9
Hustler Magazine., Inc. v. Moral Majority, Inc., et al.
, 796 F.2d 1148 (9th Cir. 1986).....................9
In re Napster, Inc. Copyright Litigation
, 191 F.Supp.2d 1087 (N.D. Cal. 2002).......................19, 20
Intellectual Reserve, Inc. v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry, Inc.
, 75 F.Supp.2d 1290(D. Utah 1999).........................................................................................................................14, 15
Lasercomb America, Inc. v. Reynolds,
911 F.2d 970 (4th Cir. 1990)...............................................19
Lindquist v. Idaho State Bd. of Corrections
, 776 F.2d 851 (9th Cir. 1985)........................................7
Los Angeles v. Davis
, 440 U.S. 625 (1979).........................................................................................3
Machesky v. Bizzell
, 414 F.2d 283 (5th Cir. 1969)............................................................................12
Mann Design Ltd. v. Bounce, Inc.
, 138 F.Supp.2d 1174 (D. Minn. 2001)..........................................6
Mattel, Inc. v. Walking Mountain Prod’ns
, 353 F.3d 792 (9th Cir., Dec. 29, 2003)..........................9
Narell v. Freeman
,
et al
., 872 F.2d 907 (9th Cir. 1989)......................................................................8
New York Times v. Sullivan
, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)............................................................................12
of 00
EFF: 20040130 OPG Opp
221 Reads
Info and Rating
| Category: | Uncategorized. |
| Rating: | |
| Upload Date: | 01/27/2008 |
| Copyright: | Attribution Non-commercial |
| Tags: |
Leave a Comment