|
|
| Vernor v. Autodesk - Cross Motions to Dismiss - First Sale Case - Updated |
 |
|
Wednesday, September 30 2009 @ 03:45 PM EDT
|
I didn't know this case was still going on. Did you? Vernor v. Autodesk? When Vernor prevailed against Autodesk's motion to dismiss in May of 2008, I guess I just assumed it got settled. The order [PDF] was so powerfully on Vernor's side as far as first sale was concerned, I thought it was game over for Autodesk. Not so. The parties simply went forward, and on the 29th there was a hearing on cross motions to dismiss. This is all happening in the US District Court for the Western District of Washington. That's the state, not the capital.
This is the case about reselling software on eBay, as you'll recall, and since first sale is such a hot topic around here, I thought you'd like to see the motions.
I didn't get all the documents, but I got the motions, as well as the First Amended Complaint and the Answer, and one of the declarations in support of Autodesk, by Raymond Nimmer. If you see anything I missed that you think would be fascinating, sing out and we'll try to get it for you. I haven't read all the documents myself yet, but I'm digging into them now. I already see a name we know, representing Autodesk, Morrison & Foerster's Michael Jacobs. The judge has taken the cross motions under advisement. I'll let you know when there is a decision. If neither is granted, the case will continue on to trial, just like after the first denial.
Updated: The judge has ruled in favor of Vernor [PDF], but the order is such a hodgepodge of confusion over what line of conflicting cases to follow, and it issued so rapidly, I am sure it will be appealed. So stay tuned.
**********************************
History
Doc.
No. |
Dates |
Description |
|---|
| 1 |
| Filed: | 08/01/2007 |
| Entered: | 08/06/2007 |
|
Complaint |
| Docket Text: COMPLAINT against all defendants (Summonses NOT issued)(Receipt # SEA 11099), filed by Timothy S Vernor. (Attachments: # (1) Civil Cover Sheet # (2) Summons)(MKB)
|
| -- |
| Filed & Entered: | 09/05/2007 | |
Summons Issued |
| Docket Text: Summons Issued and mailed to plaintiff as to defendant(s) Autodesk Inc, Andrew S Mackay. (TS, )
|
| -- |
| Filed & Entered: | 09/19/2007 | |
Notice-Other |
| Docket Text: NOTICE - Paper copy of Order regarding initial disclosures, joint status report, and early settlement sent to Timothy Vernor on Sept. 19, 2007.(CC, )
|
| 2 |
| Filed & Entered: | 09/19/2007 | |
Joint Status Report Order |
| Docket Text: ORDER REGARDING INITIAL DISCLOSURES, JOINT STATUS REPORT AND EARLY SETTLEMENTJoint Status Report due by 11/19/2007,FRCP 26f Conference Deadline is 11/5/2007.,Initial Disclosure Deadline is 11/19/2007. by Judge James L. Robart. (CC, )
|
| -- |
| Filed & Entered: | 10/31/2007 | |
Set/Reset Deadlines |
| Docket Text: Set/Reset Deadlines: The deadline for filing the Joint Status Report is extended to December 31, 2007. (CC)
|
| 3 |
| Filed & Entered: | 11/14/2007 | | Terminated: | 11/15/2007 | |
Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice |
| Docket Text: APPLICATION OF ATTORNEY Gregory Beck FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE for Plaintiff Timothy S Vernor (Fee Paid) Receipt No. 1292875. (Attachments: # (1) Attorney Registration Form)(Withey, Michael)
|
| 4 |
| Filed & Entered: | 11/14/2007 | |
Amended Complaint |
| Docket Text: AMENDED COMPLAINT against defendant(s) Autodesk Inc, filed by Timothy S Vernor.(Withey, Michael) Modified on 11/15/2007 (ECS, ). Modified on 11/21/2007 - WITHOUT ATTORNEY'S SIGNATURE ON DOCUMENT - COUNSEL WILL REFILE AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH ATTORNEY'S SIGNATURE(MD, ).
|
| 5 |
| Filed & Entered: | 11/15/2007 | |
Order on Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice |
| Docket Text: ORDER re [3] Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. The Court ADMITS Gregory A Beck as pro hac vice atty for Plaintiff Timothy S Vernor, by Bruce Rifkin. (No document associated with this docket entry, text only.)(MD, )
|
| 7 |
| Filed: | 11/19/2007 |
| Entered: | 11/21/2007 |
|
Praecipe for a Summons |
| Docket Text: PRAECIPE TO ISSUE SUMMONS & clerk issued summons re [4] Amended Complaint,. (MD, )
|
| -- |
| Filed: | 11/20/2007 |
| Entered: | 11/21/2007 |
|
Docket Annotation |
| Docket Text: The amended complaint filed on 11/14/07 does not have an attorney's signature and then on 11/20/07 counsel filed a second amended complaint with attorney's signature. The amended complaints are identical except for the signature page. (MD, )
|
| 6 |
| Filed & Entered: | 11/20/2007 | |
Amended Complaint |
| Docket Text: Second AMENDED COMPLAINT Plaintiff Vernor against defendant(s) Autodesk Inc, filed by Timothy S Vernor.(Withey, Michael) Modified on 11/21/2007 - WITH ATTORNEY'S SIGNATURE ON DOCUMENT(MD, ).
|
| 8 |
| Filed & Entered: | 11/21/2007 | |
Praecipe-Other |
| Docket Text: PRAECIPE re [6] Amended Complaint to Substitute Filing by Plaintiff Timothy S Vernor. (Attachments: # (1) First Amended Complaint)(Beck, Gregory)
|
| 9 |
| Filed: | 11/29/2007 |
| Entered: | 11/30/2007 |
|
Summons Returned Executed |
| Docket Text: (CL, ) Modified on 11/30/2007 (CL, ).
|
| -- |
| Filed & Entered: | 11/30/2007 | |
Case Assigned/Reassigned |
| Docket Text: Case Reassigned to Judge Richard A. Jones. All future documents shall bear cause number C07-1189 RAJ. Judge James L. Robart no longer assigned to the case. (CC, )
|
| -- |
| Filed & Entered: | 11/30/2007 | |
Notice of Docket Text Modification |
| Docket Text: NOTICE of Docket Text Modification : pleading under [9] is a Notice, not a declaration of services as previously posted). (CL, )
|
| 11 |
| Filed: | 12/04/2007 |
| Entered: | 12/05/2007 |
|
Certificate of Service |
| Docket Text: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE re [4] Amended Complaint,. (CL, )
|
| 10 |
| Filed & Entered: | 12/05/2007 | |
Notice of Appearance |
| Docket Text: NOTICE of Appearance by attorney Angelo J Calfo on behalf of Defendant Autodesk Inc. (Attachments: # (1) Certificate of Service)(Calfo, Angelo)
|
| -- |
| Filed & Entered: | 12/06/2007 | |
Add and Terminate Attorneys |
| Docket Text: Attorney Jeremy E Roller for Autodesk Inc added per [10] Notice of Appearance. (KN, )
|
| 12 |
| Filed & Entered: | 12/13/2007 | | Terminated: | 12/13/2007 | |
Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice |
| Docket Text: APPLICATION OF ATTORNEY Lawrence K. Rockwell FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE for Defendant Autodesk Inc (Fee Paid) Receipt No. 1315541. (Attachments: # (1) ECF Registration)(Roller, Jeremy)
|
| 13 |
| Filed & Entered: | 12/13/2007 | | Terminated: | 12/13/2007 | |
Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice |
| Docket Text: APPLICATION OF ATTORNEY Julie E. Hofer FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE for Defendant Autodesk Inc (Fee Paid) Receipt No. 1315552. (Attachments: # (1) ECF Registration)(Roller, Jeremy)
|
| 14 |
| Filed & Entered: | 12/13/2007 | | Terminated: | 12/13/2007 | |
Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice |
| Docket Text: APPLICATION OF ATTORNEY Eric W. Doney FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE for Defendant Autodesk Inc (Fee Paid) Receipt No. 1315562. (Attachments: # (1) ECF Registration)(Roller, Jeremy)
|
| 15 |
| Filed & Entered: | 12/13/2007 | |
Order on Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice |
| Docket Text: ORDER re [12] Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. The Court ADMITS Lawrence K Rockwell as pro hac vice atty for Defendant Autodesk Inc, by Bruce Rifkin. (No document associated with this docket entry, text only.)(MD, )
|
| 16 |
| Filed & Entered: | 12/13/2007 | |
Order on Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice |
| Docket Text: ORDER re [13] Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. The Court ADMITS Julie E Hofer as pro hac vice atty for Defendant Autodesk Inc, by Bruce Rifkin. (No document associated with this docket entry, text only.)(MD, )
|
| 17 |
| Filed & Entered: | 12/13/2007 | |
Order on Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice |
| Docket Text: ORDER re [14] Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. The Court ADMITS Eric W Doney as pro hac vice atty for Defendant Autodesk Inc, by Bruce Rifkin. (No document associated with this docket entry, text only.)(MD, )
|
| 18 |
| Filed & Entered: | 12/18/2007 | | Terminated: | 12/20/2007 | |
Stipulated Motion |
| Docket Text: Stipulated MOTION AND PROPOSED ORDER Setting Deadline for Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Initial Scheduling Dates by Defendant Autodesk Inc. (Attachments: # (1) Certificate of Service)Noting Date 12/18/2007.(Roller, Jeremy) Modified on 12/19/2007 (CL, ).
|
| 19 |
| Filed: | 12/20/2007 |
| Entered: | 12/21/2007 |
|
Order on Stipulated Motion |
| Docket Text: STIPULATION AND ORDER granting [18] Stipulated Motion ;Joint Status Report due by 2/29/2008 by Judge Richard A Jones.(RS, )
|
| 20 |
| Filed & Entered: | 01/15/2008 | | Terminated: | 05/20/2008 | |
Motion to Dismiss |
| Docket Text: MOTION to Dismiss Complaint, or in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment by Defendant Autodesk Inc. Oral Argument Requested. (Attachments: # (1)Proposed Order). Noting Date 2/8/2008.(Roller, Jeremy) Modified on 1/16/2008 (CL, ).
|
| 21 |
| Filed & Entered: | 01/15/2008 | |
Declaration |
| Docket Text: DECLARATION of Evelyn Lahaie in Support of Defendant Autodesk, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant Autodesk Inc re [20] MOTION to Dismiss Complaint, or in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment (Roller, Jeremy)
|
| 22 |
| Filed & Entered: | 01/15/2008 | |
Declaration |
| Docket Text: DECLARATION of Lawrence K. Rockwell in Support of Defendant Autodesk Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant Autodesk Inc re [20] MOTION to Dismiss Complaint, or in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment (Roller, Jeremy)
|
| 23 |
| Filed & Entered: | 01/15/2008 | |
Certificate of Service |
| Docket Text: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Defendant Autodesk Inc re [20] MOTION to Dismiss Complaint, or in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment, [21] Declaration, [22] Declaration,. (Roller, Jeremy)
|
| 24 |
| Filed & Entered: | 01/29/2008 | | Terminated: | 02/04/2008 | |
Stipulated Motion |
| Docket Text: Stipulated MOTION AND PROPOSED ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINE FOR PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS AND RE-SETTING INITIAL SCHEDULING DATES by Defendant Autodesk Inc. (Attachments: # (1) Certificate of Service)Noting Date 1/29/2008.(Roller, Jeremy)
|
| 25 |
| Filed & Entered: | 02/04/2008 | |
Order on Stipulated Motion |
| Docket Text: STIPULATION AND ORDER by Judge Richard A Jones. The Court extends the following deadlines: FRCP 26f Conference Deadline is 3/28/2008; Initial Disclosure Deadline is 4/11/2008, Joint Status Report due by 4/11/2008. MOTION to Dismiss Complaint, or in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment, docket no. [20] is RE-NOTED FOR 2/29/08. Response ddl 2/21/08, reply ddl 2/29/08. (CL, )
|
| 26 |
| Filed & Entered: | 02/21/2008 | |
Response to Motion |
| Docket Text: RESPONSE, by Plaintiff Timothy S Vernor, to [20] MOTION to Dismiss Complaint, or in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment. Oral Argument Requested. (Beck, Gregory)
|
| 27 |
| Filed & Entered: | 02/29/2008 | |
Reply to Response to Motion |
| Docket Text: REPLY, filed by Defendant Autodesk Inc, TO RESPONSE to [20] MOTION to Dismiss Complaint, or in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment (Attachments: # (1) Certificate of Service)(Roller, Jeremy)
|
| 28 |
| Filed & Entered: | 03/25/2008 | |
Stipulation |
| Docket Text: STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER RE SETTING INITIAL SCHEDULING DATES by parties. (Roller, Jeremy)
|
| 29 |
| Filed: | 03/27/2008 |
| Entered: | 03/28/2008 |
|
Stipulation and Order |
| Docket Text: STIPULATION AND ORDER by Judge Richard A Jones. The Court extends the following deadlines: FRCP 26f Conference Deadline is 5/9/200, Initial Disclosure Deadline is 5/23/2008, Joint Status Report due by 5/23/2008. (CL, )
|
| 30 |
| Filed & Entered: | 05/07/2008 | |
Stipulation |
| Docket Text: STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER Re-Setting Initial Scheduling Dates by parties. (Attachments: # (1) Certificate of Service)(Roller, Jeremy)
|
| 31 |
| Filed: | 05/20/2008 |
| Entered: | 05/21/2008 |
|
Order on Motion to Dismiss |
| Docket Text: ORDER by Judge Richard A Jones. The Court DENIES Dft's Motion to Dismiss, docket no. [20]. (CL, )
|
| 32 |
| Filed & Entered: | 05/30/2008 | |
Stipulation |
| Docket Text: STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO AMENDED COMPLAINT by parties. (Roller, Jeremy)
|
| 33 |
| Filed: | 06/03/2008 |
| Entered: | 06/04/2008 |
|
Stipulation and Order |
| Docket Text: STIPULATION AND ORDER by Judge Richard A Jones. Dft's deadline to respond to Vernor's First Amended Complaint is extended to June 18, 2008.(CL)
|
| 34 |
| Filed & Entered: | 06/18/2008 | |
Answer to Amended Complaint |
| Docket Text: ANSWER to [6] Amended Complaint with JURY DEMAND by Autodesk Inc. (Attachments: # (1) Certificate of Service)(Roller, Jeremy)
|
| 35 |
| Filed & Entered: | 06/26/2008 | |
Stipulation |
| Docket Text: STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER REGARDING JOINT STATUS REPORT AND DISCOVERY PLAN DEADLINE by parties. (Attachments: # (1) Certificate of Service)(Roller, Jeremy)
|
| 36 |
| Filed: | 06/30/2008 |
| Entered: | 07/01/2008 |
|
Stipulation and Order |
| Docket Text: STIPULATION AND ORDER by Judge Richard A Jones. The Court extends the Joint Status Report and Discovery Plan deadline to July 28, 2008.(CL)
|
| 37 |
| Filed & Entered: | 07/28/2008 | | Terminated: | 07/29/2008 | |
Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice |
| Docket Text: APPLICATION OF ATTORNEY Lynn M. Humphreys FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE for Defendant Autodesk Inc (Fee Paid) Receipt No. 09810000000001508394. (Attachments: # (1) ECF Registration)(Roller, Jeremy)
|
| 38 |
| Filed & Entered: | 07/28/2008 | | Terminated: | 07/29/2008 | |
Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice |
| Docket Text: APPLICATION OF ATTORNEY George C. Harris FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE for Defendant Autodesk Inc (Fee Paid) Receipt No. 09810000000001508419. (Roller, Jeremy)
|
| 39 |
| Filed & Entered: | 07/28/2008 | | Terminated: | 07/29/2008 | |
Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice |
| Docket Text: APPLICATION OF ATTORNEY Michael A. Jacobs FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE for Defendant Autodesk Inc (Fee Paid) Receipt No. 09810000000001508432. (Roller, Jeremy)
|
| 40 |
| Filed & Entered: | 07/28/2008 | |
Joint Status Report |
| Docket Text: JOINT STATUS REPORT signed by all parties; estimated Trial Days: 4.. (Roller, Jeremy)
|
| 41 |
| Filed & Entered: | 07/29/2008 | |
Order on Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice |
| Docket Text: ORDER re [37] Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. The Court ADMITS atty Lynn M Humphreys for dft Autodesk Inc, by Bruce Rifkin. (No document associated with this docket entry, text only.)(CL)
|
| 42 |
| Filed & Entered: | 07/29/2008 | |
Order on Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice |
| Docket Text: ORDER re [39] Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. The Court ADMITS atty Michael A Jacobs for dft Autodesk Inc, by Bruce Rifkin. (No document associated with this docket entry, text only.)(CL)
|
| 43 |
| Filed & Entered: | 07/29/2008 | |
Minute Order Setting Trial Date and Related Dates |
| Docket Text: MINUTE ORDER SETTING TRIAL DATE AND RELATED DATES. Length of Trial: *4 days*. BENCH TRIAL is set for 6/1/2009 at 9:00 AM in Courtroom 13106 before Judge Richard A. Jones. Joinder of Parties due by 10/30/2008, Amended Pleadings due by 12/3/2008, Expert Witness Disclosure/Reports under FRCP 26(a)(2) due by 12/3/2008, Discovery completed by 2/2/2009, Dispositive motions due by 3/3/2009, Settlement conference to be held by 4/2/2009, 39.1 mediation to be completed by 5/4/2009, Motions in Limine due by 5/4/2009, Pretrial Order due by 5/18/2009, Trial briefs and Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law to be submitted by 5/26/2009, by Judge Richard A. Jones. (VE)
|
| 44 |
| Filed & Entered: | 07/29/2008 | |
Praecipe to Attach Document |
| Docket Text: PRAECIPE to attach document (ECF Attorney Registration) re [38] Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Defendant Autodesk Inc. (Attachments: # (1) ECF Attorney Registration)(Roller, Jeremy)
|
| 45 |
| Filed: | 07/29/2008 |
| Entered: | 07/30/2008 |
|
Order on Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice |
| Docket Text: ORDER re [38] Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. The Court ADMITS atty George C Harris for dft Autodesk Inc, by Bruce Rifkin. (No document associated with this docket entry, text only.)(CL)
|
| 46 |
| Filed & Entered: | 10/29/2008 | |
Stipulation |
| Docket Text: STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER REGARDING DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE OF SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF by parties. (Roller, Jeremy)
|
| 47 |
| Filed: | 11/03/2008 |
| Entered: | 11/04/2008 |
|
Stipulation and Order |
| Docket Text: STIPULATION AND ORDER regarding dismissal with prejudice of second claim for relief by Judge Richard A Jones. (RS)
|
| 48 |
| Filed & Entered: | 02/06/2009 | |
Stipulation |
| Docket Text: STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER REGARDING BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT by parties. (Roller, Jeremy)
|
| -- |
| Filed & Entered: | 02/09/2009 | |
Docket Annotation |
| Docket Text: The court has reviewed the parties' stipulation (Dkt. # 48) to set a briefing schedule for their summary judgment motions. The court GRANTS the stipulation, and directs that Defendant shall file its summary judgment motion by February 20, 2009; Plaintiff shall file his opposition and cross-motion for summary judgment by March 6, 2009; Defendant shall file its reply and opposition to the cross-motion by March 20, 2009; and Plaintiff shall file his reply by March 27, 2009. Both cross-motions shall be noted for March 27, 2009. (JJ)
|
| 49 |
| Filed & Entered: | 02/20/2009 | |
Motion for Summary Judgment |
| Docket Text: MOTION for Summary Judgment by Defendant Autodesk Inc. Oral Argument Requested. (Attachments: # (1) Proposed Order) Noting Date 3/27/2009, (Roller, Jeremy)
|
| 50 |
| Filed & Entered: | 02/20/2009 | |
Declaration |
| Docket Text: DECLARATION of Greg Suppes filed by Defendant Autodesk Inc re [49] MOTION for Summary Judgment (Roller, Jeremy)
|
| 51 |
| Filed & Entered: | 02/20/2009 | |
Declaration |
| Docket Text: DECLARATION of George C. Harris filed by Defendant Autodesk Inc re [49] MOTION for Summary Judgment (Roller, Jeremy)
|
| 52 |
| Filed & Entered: | 02/20/2009 | |
Declaration |
| Docket Text: DECLARATION of Raymond T. Nimmer filed by Defendant Autodesk Inc re [49] MOTION for Summary Judgment (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit 1 - 2)(Roller, Jeremy)
|
| 53 |
| Filed & Entered: | 02/20/2009 | |
Certificate of Service |
| Docket Text: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Defendant Autodesk Inc re [50] Declaration, [51] Declaration, [52] Declaration, [49] MOTION for Summary Judgment. (Roller, Jeremy)
|
| 54 |
| Filed & Entered: | 03/06/2009 | |
Motion for Summary Judgment |
| Docket Text: MOTION for Summary Judgment and Response to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment by Plaintiff Timothy S Vernor. Oral Argument Requested. Noting Date 3/27/2009, (Beck, Gregory)
|
| 55 |
| Filed & Entered: | 03/06/2009 | |
Declaration |
| Docket Text: DECLARATION of Timothy S. Vernor filed by Plaintiff Timothy S Vernor re [54] MOTION for Summary Judgment and Response to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Beck, Gregory)
|
| 56 |
| Filed & Entered: | 03/09/2009 | |
Praecipe to Attach Document |
| Docket Text: PRAECIPE to attach document re [55] Declaration by Plaintiff Timothy S Vernor. (Attachments: # (1) Attachment 1 - Vernor Signature Page, # (2) Attachment 2 - Vernor Declaration Exhibit 1)(Beck, Gregory)
|
| 57 |
| Filed & Entered: | 03/20/2009 | |
Reply to Response to Motion |
| Docket Text: REPLY, filed by Defendant Autodesk Inc, TO RESPONSE to [49] MOTION for Summary Judgment, [54] MOTION for Summary Judgment and Response to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Roller, Jeremy)
|
| 58 |
| Filed & Entered: | 03/20/2009 | |
Declaration |
| Docket Text: Second DECLARATION of Greg Suppes filed by Defendant Autodesk Inc re [49] MOTION for Summary Judgment (Roller, Jeremy)
|
| 59 |
| Filed & Entered: | 03/20/2009 | |
Declaration |
| Docket Text: Second DECLARATION of George C. Harris filed by Defendant Autodesk Inc re [49] MOTION for Summary Judgment (Roller, Jeremy)
|
| 60 |
| Filed & Entered: | 03/20/2009 | |
Declaration |
| Docket Text: Second DECLARATION of Raymond T. Nimmer filed by Defendant Autodesk Inc re [49] MOTION for Summary Judgment (Roller, Jeremy)
|
| 61 |
| Filed & Entered: | 03/20/2009 | |
Certificate of Service |
| Docket Text: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Defendant Autodesk Inc re [57] Reply to Response to Motion, [59] Declaration, [58] Declaration, [60] Declaration. (Roller, Jeremy)
|
| 62 |
| Filed & Entered: | 03/27/2009 | |
Reply to Response to Motion |
| Docket Text: REPLY, filed by Plaintiff Timothy S Vernor, TO RESPONSE to [54] MOTION for Summary Judgment and Response to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Beck, Gregory)
|
| 63 |
| Filed & Entered: | 03/31/2009 | | Terminated: | 04/06/2009 | |
Stipulated Motion |
| Docket Text: Stipulated MOTION JOINT MOTION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING TRIAL DATE AND RELATED DEADLINES by Defendant Autodesk Inc. Noting Date 3/31/2009, (Roller, Jeremy)
|
| 64 |
| Filed & Entered: | 04/06/2009 | |
Order on Stipulated Motion |
| Docket Text: MINUTE ORDER by Richard A. Jones, United States District Judge. The court GRANTS [63] the parties' joint motion and VACATES the trial date and all remaining pretrial deadlines in this matter. The court will impose a new trial schedule in the order resolving the parties' pending cross-motions for summary judgment.(CL)
|
| 65 |
| Filed & Entered: | 04/07/2009 | |
Notice of Change of Address |
| Docket Text: NOTICE of Change of Address of Attorney Jeremy E Roller. Filed by Defendant Autodesk Inc. (Roller, Jeremy)
|
| 66 |
| Filed: | 04/29/2009 |
| Entered: | 04/30/2009 |
|
Order to Re-Note Motion |
| Docket Text: MINUTE ORDER by Richard A. Jones, United States District Judge. The court directs the clerk to RENOTE the cross-motions for summary judgment (Dkt. ## [49], [54]) for May 29, 2009.(CL)
|
| 67 |
| Filed & Entered: | 05/15/2009 | |
Memorandum |
| Docket Text: MEMORANDUM filed by Defendant Autodesk Inc re [49] MOTION for Summary Judgment SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF AUTODESK'S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION AND IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION (Attachments: # (1) Certificate of Service)(Roller, Jeremy)
|
| 68 |
| Filed & Entered: | 05/29/2009 | |
Memorandum |
| Docket Text: MEMORANDUM re [67] Memorandum, in Response to Autodesk's Supplemental Memorandum by Plaintiff Timothy S Vernor. (Beck, Gregory)
|
| 69 |
| Filed & Entered: | 09/17/2009 | |
Notice of Hearing on Motion |
| Docket Text: NOTICE of Hearing [54] MOTION for Summary Judgment and Response to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, [49] MOTION for Summary Judgment : Motion Hearing set for 9/29/2009 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 13106 before Judge Richard A Jones.(RM)
|
| 70 |
| Filed & Entered: | 09/29/2009 | |
Motion Hearing |
| Docket Text: MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Richard A Jones- Dep Clerk: Gail Glass; Pla Counsel: Gregory Beck; Def Counsel: Michael Jacobs, Jeremy Roller, Julie Hofer and Richard Foehr; CR: Nancy Bauer; Motion Hearing held on 9/29/2009 The Court hears arguments of counsel on Plaintiff's and Defendant's Motions for Summary judgment docket numbers [49] and [54]. The Court takes the matter under advisement. (GG) |
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: osaeris on Wednesday, September 30 2009 @ 03:58 PM EDT |
| Put all off topic postings here! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Off Topic Hat Trick - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 30 2009 @ 04:08 PM EDT
- Noise to Signal - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 30 2009 @ 04:48 PM EDT
- Supreme Court trend in rulings undercuts plaintiffs standing to file civil cases - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 30 2009 @ 04:57 PM EDT
- CLUNK ... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 30 2009 @ 07:45 PM EDT
- Have patience... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 30 2009 @ 08:42 PM EDT
- Have patience... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 30 2009 @ 09:10 PM EDT
- Have patience... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 30 2009 @ 10:11 PM EDT
- Microsoft wins a patent case. - Authored by: pgmer6809 on Wednesday, September 30 2009 @ 09:28 PM EDT
- Why vague laws are bad - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 01 2009 @ 01:32 AM EDT
- SCO replies......NOT - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 01 2009 @ 07:54 AM EDT
- Waiting for (K)Ubuntu..... Very stressful! - Authored by: tiger99 on Thursday, October 01 2009 @ 10:15 AM EDT
- Electricity Industry - using virus infected pc's running MS-Windows to monitor control systems - Authored by: Arthur Marsh on Thursday, October 01 2009 @ 02:22 PM EDT
- Google enhances search - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Thursday, October 01 2009 @ 02:24 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: osaeris on Wednesday, September 30 2009 @ 03:59 PM EDT |
| Comments about the news go here. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: osaeris on Wednesday, September 30 2009 @ 04:00 PM EDT |
| Place any corrections here so PJ can find them. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 30 2009 @ 04:08 PM EDT |
| (n/t) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Not at all - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 30 2009 @ 04:16 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 30 2009 @ 04:44 PM EDT |
The Order (and its analysis of issues, and skirting some rat-holes) is *very*
interesting.
I have to say, I think this case is doing a good job of finding a safe path
through some murky territory, legally speaking. Good in the sense of both
preserving the intent of the authors of the laws in question, and good in the
sense of maintaining essential conditions for preserving the "teeth"
in the GPL.
Here's what makes this an almost ideal case: it isn't a resale situation, it is
a re-re-sale situation. In mathematical terms, it is the "inductive"
step, not tied to the initial conditions (original purchaser license terms).
Either a resale is tied to the license, and the license is transferable, or the
resale buyer is not bound by the license (that would be bad), in which case
nothing in the license preventing resale would affect *this* buyer (plaintiff).
The third possibility, that the original buyer is bound by the license and can't
resell, is off the table for this case, since the original owner is not a
party.
(In multi-user computer systems, there is an illuminating analogy in how
background processes (daemons) get started up. Computer processes that create
new processes, are refered to as "parent/child" pairs. Special
privileges are given to the parent, but with those, comes a responsibility. If
the parent process exits (dies), that responsibility is handed back to the main
"kernel" process, and the child process "freezes", or
becomes a "zombine". The wonderful trick that was invented to handle
this, is that the main process not only creates a child, but that child creates
a grand-child. Once the child process has created the grand-child, it exits,
leaving the child under the care of the grand-parent. Much like in western
society :-), the grand-parent lets the child do what it wants, and then when it
exits, the child continues to be free. It is, in effect, a daemon-child. :-). )
Where this appears to be heading, is toward a pit-and-the-pendulum situation
(Edgar Alan Poe reference). How does the court resolve two equally important,
yet in this case opposite, controlling legal mechanisms? License restrictions,
and the unfettered ability to dispose of something which was bought?
Where it appears to be going, and where it should go IMHO, is that the license
is binding, exactly up until the instant of the sale transaction. The buyer
instantly becomes the new owner, and is bound by the license, while the seller
is instantly freed from the license (except for any appropriate terms that
survive termination of the license, as many licenses have).
It is important that notwithstanding clauses preventing tranfer, that tranfer is
possible, but that the remainder of the license applies in full.
Of course, the GPL would always prevail, since without a valid license, the
posessor of GPL software has no rights which might otherwise come with a sale.
The very fact that such software is "free as in beer" happens to add
to those defenses - you can't sell something without a buyer, and you can't buy
that which is free.
(The computer analogy is that of an "atomic transaction", where the
change-of-state that occurs is a quantum event, completely indivisible. The
proper functioning of many core elements of computer systems relies on this, the
"test-and-set" function which does not suffer from timing issues which
would give rise to race conditions.)
briand (not logged in)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Shadow Wrought on Wednesday, September 30 2009 @ 05:14 PM EDT |
You are spending money on something. Therefore, you should, in any sane world,
own it. But software came up with this model that you're realling just renting
it, and they continue to own it. Fine, let them own the source code, but when
you buy a binary it ought to be YOURS!
I'm not expecting the Court to
agree with me, but this kind of model should have never been allowed to occur in
the first place.---
"It's a summons." "What's a summons?" "It means
summon's in trouble." -- Rocky and Bullwink [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- This is why the License Model is Crap - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 30 2009 @ 05:51 PM EDT
- This is why the License Model is Crap - Authored by: Lazarus on Wednesday, September 30 2009 @ 06:58 PM EDT
- Huh? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 01 2009 @ 02:43 AM EDT
- Huh? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 01 2009 @ 07:38 AM EDT
- Huh? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 01 2009 @ 11:33 AM EDT
- This is why the License Model is Crap - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 30 2009 @ 07:21 PM EDT
- This is why the License Model is Crap - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 01 2009 @ 04:48 AM EDT
- and our next contestant - Miss Representation ... - Authored by: NigelWhitley on Thursday, October 01 2009 @ 10:03 AM EDT
- Three questions for you - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 01 2009 @ 12:25 PM EDT
- This is why the License Model is Crap - Authored by: soronlin on Friday, October 02 2009 @ 07:47 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: tiger99 on Wednesday, September 30 2009 @ 06:39 PM EDT |
| Probably not legally recognised as such (yet?), but they behave in their market
(CAD) in exactly the same way that M$ behave in theirs. There are many
similarities, such as the difficulty and expense of getting the specs so you can
interoperate with their software, which you can actually only get for projects
of which they approve, and never, ever, FOSS. Also their products are grossly
overpriced, and not necessarily of high quality, and they flout the law in many
countries by price fixing, where the dealer is not allowed to give a
discount. They also dominate the market with a product that, compared to the
minor players, is really just a toy. Just like comparing Windoze to OS X. Now
none of that is directly relevant to this case, but I think that the behaviour
of Autodesk should be watched closely, both by the DOJ and the EU. I am not sure
how much legal trouble they have had already, as it does not attract so much
publicity as M$, but I do seem to remember some trouble for price fixing a
long time ago. There likely is more. So I sincerely hope that they lose in
court. It will be very well deserved. They seem to be trying to flout the law. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 01 2009 @ 01:26 AM EDT |
You thought it was "game over". We thought it was "game over". It should have
been "game over".
But no! This is the legal system of the USA! A wealthy
litigant can go on, and on, and on, for years, until its unfortunate opponent
has run out of money, been forced out of business, or died. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: msfisher on Thursday, October 01 2009 @ 12:02 PM EDT |
One of the comments here may have hit the situation on the head. Just what are
the terms of the license?
If the license only affects the installation of the software one one computer at
the time of the installation, then it would appear that Vernor should be in the
clear. Why? If he never installs the software, he never comes under the
license agreement.
Only when Vernor installs the software he's bought from a previous licensee
(note I don't say "owner") might he actually be affected by the
license. Again, why? Because that's the only point at which he actually agrees
to the terms of the license.
OTOH, if the license includes limits on the sale of the physical media (I've
seen this here on Groklaw in the Snow Leopard vs Leopard licenses, section 3)
then Vernor has a problem. Whoever sold the physical media to him may also have
a problem.
Even here, he may be in the clear because he never agreed to the license terms.
In other words, how can he be bound by the terms of a license that he's never
seen nor agreed to?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 01 2009 @ 04:08 PM EDT |
I thought Softman v. Adobe settled this long ago?
Link to decision.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 02 2009 @ 01:21 AM EDT |
I thought the ruling was quite clear. It did a great job of establishing the
history, and the precedent. He choose to use the older precedent and noted that
the newer precedents made no reference to the older precedent. Something I found
particularly damaging to the newer precedents.
The judge also, went over the legislative history of the law of owner and sale
and noted how Congress has had amble opportunity to redefine owner and hasn't,
and that also Congress has passed laws to counteract the affects of the later
precedents. Something that, to me, says Congress disagrees with those later
precedents. Another damning of the later precedents. If I'm ever involved in a
copyright dispute like this, I'm going to be pulling ideas from this ruling, for
sure.
All together I find it quite clear and logical. A wonderful ruling that if logic
is at all respected should stand for a 100 years or more. Unless the RIAA and
gang gets Congress to redefine owner.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 02 2009 @ 12:18 PM EDT |
I bought a box with three items: A CD containing software, a CD containing
the
source code for the software, and a sheet of paper telling me that the
software
is licensed under the GPL, together with the text of the GPL.
1. I can
copy both CDs and the paper, put them in a new box and sell them.
Neither First
Sale nor copyright law give me permission, but the GPL does.
2. I can
put all three items back in the box and sell the box. First sale
doctrine
allows me to do this, since there is no copying involved.
3. I cannot
legally copy the CD with the software alone and sell it. Neither
First Sale nor
copyright law gives me permission to make the copy, and GPL
doesn't allow me to
make the copy and distribute it in this way.
Now the hard one: Does
the First Sale doctrine allow me to sell just the CD
with the software on its
own? I am not making any copies, so I wouldn't have
to follow the terms of the
GPL. I am certainly "distributing" the software, but I
would of course claim
that I never agreed to the GPL. So does the First Sale
doctrine _only_ allow me
to sell _exactly_ what I received, that is software +
source code + license, or
does it allow me to sell only parts?
Obviously this would allow to work
around the GPL by just involving a middle
man; one person A making an infinite
number of copies and giving them to B
in accordance with the GPL, and B selling
only the software itself without
source and license without ever making a copy
himself. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 02 2009 @ 06:13 PM EDT |
but the order is such a hodgepodge of confusion
I'm
disagreeably surprised that PJ chooses to display such lack of respect for this
judge. The order is not a hodgepodge of confusion; read it again. The points at
issue, and the prior judgements in other courts, are confusing. This order,
however, sorts through the complications, resolves the confusing points, and
presents a clear view of how existing law and precedent apply to this
case.
The judgement may be right or wrong, but it is most certainly not a
hodgepodge of confusion. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
