4 ms·

> However what's interesting in this case, and what I would agree isn't clear, is the person bringing the case isn't the copyright owner though. You're right,

> However what's interesting in this case, and what I would agree isn't clear, is the person bringing the case isn't the copyright owner though. You're right, which is why SFC's case is entirely a contract law case. SFC argues (1) the GPL is a contract between the software creator and Vizio, (2) Vizio has a contractual obligation to publish their modified source code, and (3) SFC has the right to sue because they are a third-party beneficiary of that contract. Here, this decision only states that SFC's contract claims aren't preempted by the Copyright Act and therefore the case belongs in state court. The case was originally brought in state court, but Visio successfully argued that SFC was essentially making a copyright law claim disguised as a contract claim, and therefore the case belonged in federal court. (Edit: I was wrong about the procedure. See reply by dragonwriter.) So, now it's back to state court where the court will decide whether there is any merit to the contract claims.

dragonwriter 4y ago
> The case was originally brought in state court, but Visio successfully argued that SFC was essentially making a copyright law claim disguised as a contract claim, and therefore the case belonged in federal court. Vizio unsuccessfully argued that: this is the decision on Vizio’s attempt to remove the case to federal court, which SFC opposed. (The nature of removal is such that it always “succeeds” in the limited sense that the removal itself is a federal question resolved in federal court, but Vizio never succeeded in convincing any court that the case should be removed.)
- bdowling 4y ago
  Ah, you're right. The initial filing by Visio was a notice of removal. There is no argument or decision by the court on the notice. SFC responds by filing a motion to remand, which is what this decision relates to.

dragonwriter 4y ago

> The case was originally brought in state court, but Visio successfully argued that SFC was essentially making a copyright law claim disguised as a contract claim, and therefore the case belonged in federal court. Vizio unsuccessfully argued that: this is the decision on Vizio’s attempt to remove the case to federal court, which SFC opposed. (The nature of removal is such that it always “succeeds” in the limited sense that the removal itself is a federal question resolved in federal court, but Vizio never succeeded in convincing any court that the case should be removed.)

bdowling 4y ago
Ah, you're right. The initial filing by Visio was a notice of removal. There is no argument or decision by the court on the notice. SFC responds by filing a motion to remand, which is what this decision relates to.