Correct narrative text to match current situation & typo fixes
This commit is contained in:
		
							parent
							
								
									ab6bb1d6c7
								
							
						
					
					
						commit
						5584f539a8
					
				
					 1 changed files with 11 additions and 7 deletions
				
			
		|  | @ -5,14 +5,18 @@ | |||
| 
 | ||||
| <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) — 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 “specific performance” (fulfilling a contract requirement in exactly the way the contract specifies) of production of complete, corresponding source code (CCS) — 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 “remove”</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 “extra element”</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 — 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> | ||||
| 
 | ||||
|  | @ -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> | ||||
|  |  | |||
		Loading…
	
	Add table
		
		Reference in a new issue