Plaintiffs' Motion to Have the Court Reconsider Its Order to Have BT Recreate "Aparthenonia" and BT's Opposition to that Motion.
By Josh Davis • December 4, 2006 at 11:15 pm
After the Court reserved judgment on BT's summary judgment motion pending his recreation of "Aparthenonia" from scratch, plaintiffs moved to have the Court reconsider its decision under Local Rule 6.3. Plaintiffs argue that the Court did not have the authority to ask BT to recreate "Aparthenonia" and that in doing so the Court misconstrued or ignored the applicable law. Read more » about Plaintiffs' Motion to Have the Court Reconsider Its Order to Have BT Recreate "Aparthenonia" and BT's Opposition to that Motion.
Plaintiffs' Opposition to Summary Judgment and BT's Response
By Josh Davis • December 4, 2006 at 10:36 pm
Plaintiffs' filed their opposition to BT's motion for summary judgment on October 12, 2006 (available here). Instead of arguing the issue of access, plaintiffs abandoned that argument and staked their entire case on the theory that "Aparthenonia" and "Bust Dat Groove" are so "strikingly similar" that access (and copying) can be inferred. Read more » about Plaintiffs' Opposition to Summary Judgment and BT's Response
BT Moves for Summary Judgment
By Josh Davis • December 4, 2006 at 8:48 pm
On September 25, 2006, the Clinic and co-counsel at Kirkland Ellis moved for summary judgment on behalf of BT. The primary thrust of the motion centers on plaintiffs' failure to show any plausible theory of access to plaintiffs' work. Plaintiffs bear the burden of showing copying in order to succeed on their infringement action and--absent direct evidence of such copying--must be able to show access to that work. Read more » about BT Moves for Summary Judgment