( ESNUG 523 Item 1 ) -------------------------------------------- [05/02/13]
Subject: Berkeley's lawyer answers Cadence charges in U.S. District Court
> Cadence is suing Berkeley DA in US district court for breach of contract
> of the Cadence Connections agreement between BDA and Cadence; and for
> violating the Digital Millennium Copyright Act -- by giving customers
> a "secretly developed" interface for BDA AFS into Virtuoso ADE -- which
> bypasses the Cadence-licenced OASIS interface to ADE.
>
> - from http://www.deepchip.com/items/0510-09.html
In response to the Cadence lawsuit, yesterday morning (05/01/13) Berkeley's
lawyer, Darin W. Snyder, filed in court a very detailed "Motion to Dismiss
or for a More Definite Statement".
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
THE SHORT VERSION
Apparently, vague lawsuits aren't allowed in court. (Who knew???)
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
THE LONG VERSION
In order to let the motion speak for itself, I need to quote it often. To
make quoting easy, anything indented here is directly from the BDA motion.
NO BREACH OF CONTRACT
First about the Cadence Connections breach of contract claim, the motion's
Statement of Facts:
As the Installation Guide cited in the complaint makes clear, joint
customers could employ any of 3 integrations: 'Unified Integration',
'OASIS Integration', and 'SKILL Integration'. ...
... Nothing in that agreement specifies that BDA must use any 'OASIS
integration product' or cause its customers to obtain an OASIS license.
If it's not in the contract, they can't be breaching it.
VAGUE LAWSUITS AREN'T ALLOWED
The Table of Contents of the motion give the rest of dismissal request:
A. Cadence Does Not Meet The Requirements Of Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 8
1. Rule 8 Requires Facts, Not Formulaic Conclusions
2. Cadence's DMCA Allegations Are Devoid Of Facts
And Consequently Insufficient
3. The Possible Meanings Of The Complaint Do Not
Support A DMCA Claim
Apparently there's a "Rule 8" which says you can't be vague in a lawsuit.
Rule 8 also says you can't just mimic the wording of the law and then accuse
someone of breaking it. You need detailed specifics.
Cadence provides nothing more than a 'formulaic recitation of the
elements' of a DMCA violation. Under Rule 8, as interpreted by
the Supreme Court in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and Ashcroft
v. Iqbal, Cadence must plead greater factual specificity before
it may 'unlock the doors of discovery.'
This is legalese saying you have to make a specific claim when you file a
lawsuit -- you can't be vague.
Cadence's DMCA claims 'consist of nothing more than a bare assertion'
and plainly fall within the prohibition against 'threadbare recitals
of the elements of a cause of action supported by mere conclusory
statements.'
The motion then goes on with a table showing the Cadence claim right next
to the DMCA law with the Cadence language closely matching the DMCA wording;
i.e. "threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action".
SW COMMANDS ARE NOT PASSWORDS
NOTE: a "technological measure" is DMCA speak for any type of SW security
scheme -- like passwords, encryption, scrambling, authentication, etc.
The complaint does allege that 'software commands within Virtuso
ADE ... prevent use of a non-Cadence simulator without the end-user
having an OASIS license.' (Complaint 13) But nothing in the
complaint identifies the specific 'software commands' that
supposedly comprise the technological measure...
... Nor does the complaint explain how defendants allegedly
circumvented those 'software commands' or what sort of 'access'
they purportedly obtained.
Legalese saying: "Hey! Access to ADE wasn't encrypted; there was no password
cracking; SKILL commands are NOT passwords; we're just simply interfacing to
ADE. Their code cracking claim is very vague."
The BDA motion then speculates about the possible meanings of the original
Cadence complaint and shoots each one down:
- ... Cadence is alleging that the OASIS license is the technological
measure that effectively controls access to Virtuoso ADE. Such an
allegation is insufficient under the DMCA: a license, without more,
cannot be a technological measure.
- If Cadence intended to allege that 'commands' in Virtuoso ADE are
the technological measure, it was required to, at a minimum, explain
what those commands are and how they prevent access to the
copyrighted work in question. This it has failed to do. Cadence has
not alleged that the OASIS license contained a 'key' or code that
users were required to provide to enable access to Virtuoso ADE.
Then the interesting and really complicated last 4 pages of the Motion to
Dismiss went into a very detailed legal discussion of how SW commands are
explicitly NOT the same thing as "technological measures" used protect SW.
WHO ARE THESE 25 "DOES"?
Plus there's the vagueness of who's being accused (the 25 "Does"):
Because Cadence's DMCA claim so lacks factual specificity, BDA is
unable to identify the alleged technological measure or alleged
method of circumvention. BDA is similarly unable to identify the
purported acts of the Doe defendants or their identities -- whether
they are the joint customers of Cadence and BDA, BDA employees, or
some other companies or individuals -- or the supposed access
obtained. Cadence's failure to plead the specificity required by
Rule 8 merits dismissal of the DMCA claim.
And therefore this Cadence claim that BDA is violating the DMCA should be
thrown out.
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
  
MOTION FOR A MORE DEFINITE DMCA CLAIM
As a sort of legal P.S., the BDA court filing closed by asking if this suit
was NOT dismissed by the judge, she should "require that Cadence clearly
identify and describe the alleged technological measure at issue, explain
how BDA, in concert with the Does, allegedly circumvented that measure, and
the nature of the alleged access obtained."
It'll be interesting to see what Judge Rogers does and how Cadence responds.
- John Cooley
DeepChip.com Holliston, MA
P.S. Weird question -- Why didn't the Cadence lawyers know about "Rule 8"
and this requirement of non-vague lawsuits? It seems so basic.
Related Articles:
So far public opinion is strongly anti-Cadence on CDNS vs. BDA
Rumors of Calibre Interactive, Intel, TSMC, FTC, CDNS vs. BDA
Does Cadence-Berkeley lawsuit mean some ADE users will be sued?
Join
Index
Next->Item
|
|
