3 ms·
>This could be argued as intentional, deceptive, and hence fraudulent. Fraud requires a false statement, generally. The letter clearly cites 1201 and never cit
by ikeboy 6y ago
>This could be argued as intentional, deceptive, and hence fraudulent.
Fraud requires a false statement, generally. The letter clearly cites 1201 and never cites 512, and is missing essential elements of 512, (e.g. it never claims direct infringement). There's no way 512(f) applies.
- dredmorbius 6y agoA false representation of a matter of fact—whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have been disclosed—that deceives and is intended to deceive another so that the individual will act upon it to her or his legal injury. https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Fraud https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Fraud See also 18 USC 1001.
- ikeboy 6y agoThere's no false representation of a matter of fact, here. And 1001 applies to lying to the government, which isn't relevant here.
- dredmorbius 6y agoMy intent is to show legal definitions of fraud differing markedly from your assertion.
- ikeboy 6y agoI said generally. It remains the case that the letter here is not plausibly fraud.