Copyright Infringement Case Against Sun StorageTek
- First Amended Complaint
- Motion to strike Sun Microsystems and Jonathan Schwartz's motion for attorney's fees
- Exposing the false and misleading representations and ensuring the integrity of the judicial process
- More on the disqualification of SUN's counsel
- Response in Support of the Motion to Disqualify Defense Counsel
- Yue's Opposition to Sun and Jonathan Schwartz's motion for attorneys' fees
- Yue's FRCP 60(b) Motion for Relief from Judgment
- Sun Microsystems and Jonathan Schwartz's Motion for Attorneys' Fees
- Sun Microsystems and Jonathan Schwartz's Fee Statements
- Motion to Disqualify Judge Martin J. Jenkins Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 144
- Opposition to Chordiant Software, Inc.'s motion to dismiss
Again, are we in reason business?
- The facts of the case revealed in StorageTek's internal emails
Lisa K. Rady at StorageTek: "As you can see we have exceeded our 1000 distributions of NetBula".
Michael Melnick at StorageTek: "The number that Holly has provided and thought it may be low causes quite a problem for you. We have only made 2 purchases for the rights to distribute a total of 2000 licenses."
See more of StorageTek's internal documents.
- Letter to the Judge Martin J. Jenkins
A non-existent license does not exist.
A revoked license ceased to exist.
The scope of a non-existent license is null.
- Judge Jenkins's Summary Judgment Ruling on Copyright claim
"both the 2000 and 2004 Agreements state that one user may use each of the licenses purchased. This provision does not limit how the software may be used, but instead defines what the purchase of one license gives the buyer. Therefore, because this provision is not a limitation on the scope of the license, Plaintiff is not entitled to a copyright infringement claim on this issue."
"Plaintiff relies on the clause in both the 2000 and 2004 Licenses that states "[t]his Agreement may not be assigned by either party or amended without the written
consent of both parties, which shall not be unreasonably withheld.(Melnick Decl., Exh. 1 at 4;
Exh. 2 at 4.) To state a copyright infringement claim based on a violation of this provision,
however, Plaintiff has to show that this provision limits the scope of the license and that Defendants
exceeded that scope. Regardless of the untimeliness of Plaintiff' request, the Court finds that this
clause does not limit the scope of the license and is instead an independent contractual covenant.
Plaintiff, therefore, is not entitled to a copyright infringement claim on this issue."
Petition to the Ninth Circuit
Appeal to the Ninth Circuit
Post your comments