website Changeset - 5584f539a856 · Conservancy Kallithea

Changeset - 5584f539a856

Parent rev.

Child rev.

[Not reviewed]

0 1 0

Bradley M. Kuhn - 3 months ago 2024-01-08 03:19:34
bkuhn@sfconservancy.org

Correct narrative text to match current situation & typo fixes

1 file changed with 11 insertions and 7 deletions:

conservancy/static/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html

0 comments (0 inline, 0 general)

conservancy/static/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html

➞

Show inline comments

@@ ... / @@ -5,15 +5,19 @@ @@
 <h1>Current Status of Vizio Case</h1>
-<p>We are awaiting the state judge's ruling on Vizio's motion for <a href="/copyleft-compliance/glossary.html#summary-judgment">summary judgment</a>.</p>
+<p>We are awaiting the filing of Vizio's reply to our  our motion for summary adjudication.</p>
 <h3>History of Vizio Case</h3>
-<p>On October 19, 2021, SFC filed a third-party beneficiary contract <a href="https://sfconservancy.org/docs/software-freedom-conservancy-v-vizio-complaint-2021-10-19.pdf">lawsuit</a> against Vizio in California State Court in Orange County, CA.  Our <a href="/copyleft-compliance/glossary.html#complaint">complaint</a> demands <em>no financial compensation</em> but instead asks for what truly matters with regard to software rights and freedom: the "specific performance" (fulfilling a contract requirement in exactly the way the contract specifies) of production of complete, corresponding source code (CCS) &mdash; as defined in the various GPL Agreements (such as GPLv2 and LGPLv2.1).</p>
+<p>On October 19, 2021, SFC filed a third-party beneficiary contract <a href="https://sfconservancy.org/docs/software-freedom-conservancy-v-vizio-complaint-2021-10-19.pdf">lawsuit</a> against Vizio in California State Court in Orange County, CA.  Our <a href="/copyleft-compliance/glossary.html#complaint">complaint</a> demands <em>no financial compensation</em> but instead asks for what truly matters with regard to software rights and freedom: the &ldquo;specific performance&rdquo; (fulfilling a contract requirement in exactly the way the contract specifies) of production of complete, corresponding source code (CCS) &mdash; as defined in the various GPL Agreements (such as GPLv2 and LGPLv2.1).</p>
 <p>Vizio has still not provided CCS for their televisions to SFC, and so our lawsuit continues.  Instead, Vizio <a href="/blog/2021/dec/28/vizio-update-1/">attempted to &ldquo;remove&rdquo;</a> the case to federal court (arguing that copyright claims <em>preempted</em> our third-party beneficiary contract claim).  We <a href="/news/2022/may/16/vizio-remand-win/">succeeded in our motion to remand the case back to state court</a>; the federal judge <a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.837808/gov.uscourts.cacd.837808.30.0.pdf">agreed that our case included an &ldquo;extra element&rdquo;</a> not covered by copyright.</p>
 <p>After several months of litigation back in state court, Vizio <a href="https://sfconservancy.org/docs/2023-4-28_VIZIOs_Motion_for_Summary_Judgment_with_Reservation.pdf">filed for</a> <a href="/copyleft-compliance/glossary.html#summary-judgment">summary judgment</a> in the state court <em>again</em> arguing copyright preemption. The state court is not bound by the federal court's ruling against preemption, so Vizio was able to essentially re-argue its motion to dismiss. Vizio also argued that the GPL Agreements have no third-party beneficiaries (which is the first time Vizio has tried to attack these claims substantively).  Currently, we are awaiting the judge's ruling on Vizio's motion for summary judgment.</p>
 <p>After several months of litigation back in state court, Vizio <a href="https://sfconservancy.org/docs/2023-4-28_VIZIOs_Motion_for_Summary_Judgment_with_Reservation.pdf">filed for</a> <a href="/copyleft-compliance/glossary.html#summary-judgment">summary judgment</a> in the state court <em>again</em> arguing copyright preemption. The state court is not bound by the federal court's ruling against preemption, so Vizio was able to essentially re-argue its motion to dismiss. (Vizio also argued that the GPL Agreements have no third-party beneficiaries &mdash; which was the first time Vizio has tried to attack these claims substantively).  On 29 December 2023, the judge <a href="https://sfconservancy.org/docs/Order_Denying_Vizio_Motion_for_Summary_Judgement_12-29-23.pdf"><strong>denied</strong> Vizio's motion for summary judgment</a>.  </p>
 <p>On 1 December 2023, SFC filed
 a <a href="https://sfconservancy.org/docs/software-freedom-conservancy-v-vizio_2023-12-01_SFC-Motion-Summary-Adjudication.pdf">motion
 for summary adjudication</a>.  Vizio has not yet filed its reply to that motion.</p>
 <p>The case is currently set for trial to begin on March 25, 2024.</p>
 <h3>Portions of Interest from the Docket in the Vizio Case</h3>
@@ ... / @@ -36,14 +40,14 @@ Original Complaint (2021-10-19)</li> @@
   <li><a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.837808/gov.uscourts.cacd.837808.30.0.pdf"><strong>Decision by the federal court to remand the case to state court</strong></a></li>
 </ul></li>
-<li><h5>Vizio's Motion for Summary Judgement</h5>
+<li><h5>Vizio's Motion for Summary Judgment</h5>
 <ul>
   <li><a href="https://sfconservancy.org/docs/2023-4-28_VIZIOs_Motion_for_Summary_Judgment_with_Reservation.pdf">Vizio's Motion for Summary Judgment</li>
   <li><a href="https://sfconservancy.org/docs/SFC_response_to_summary_judgement.pdf">SFC's response to Vizio's Motion for Summary Judgment</li>
   <li><a href="https://sfconservancy.org/docs/Vizio_summary_judgement_reply_brief.pdf">Vizio's reply to SFC's response to Vizio's Motion for Summary Judgment</a></li>
   <li><a href="https://sfconservancy.org/docs/Transcript_Full_Vizios_MSJ_HearingDeptC-33.231005.pdf">Full transcript from the hearing</a></li>
   <li><a href="https://sfconservancy.org/docs/Order_Denying_Vizio_Motion_for_Summary_Judgement_12-29-23.pdf">Judge's
       ruling denying Vizio's Motion for Summary Judgement</li>
   <li><a href="https://sfconservancy.org/docs/Order_Denying_Vizio_Motion_for_Summary_Judgement_12-29-23.pdf"><strong>Judge's
       ruling denying Vizio's Motion for Summary Judgment</strong></a></li>
 </ul></li>
 <li><h5>SFC's Motion for Summary Adjudication</h5>
 <ul>

0 comments (0 inline, 0 general)