Judge dismisses Vizio's call for summary judgment

[Software Freedom Conservancy]

          Judge dismisses Vizio's call for summary judgment
           SFC files own “Motion for Summary Adjudication”

URL: https://sfconservancy.org/news/2024/jan/03/vizio-sj-rejected/

Social media:
  https://social.sfconservancy.org/notice/AdTgM86aQ1RtpKjIX2
  https://x.com/conservancy/status/1742621004793512340

A very welcome victory in our case against Vizio [0] was presented last
week. Judge Sandy Leal denied Vizio's Motion for Summary Judgment [1],
allowing the case to proceed in state court. The Order echoes SFC
arguments in court that the claim is not preempted by copyright law and
that consumers like SFC have standing to enforce the GPL as third-party
beneficiaries [2] to the GPL — without any action by copyright holders
of copylefted code.

The decision speaks clearly:

“Allowing third parties such as SFC to enforce their rights to receive
source code is not only consistent with the GPLs’ objectives; it is both
essential and necessary to achieve these objectives. Recipients of
GPL-licensed software will be assured of their right to receive source
code only if they have standing to enforce that right.”

and

“… the Court finds that Plaintiff’s claim for breach of contract is not
preempted by the Copyright Act, and Vizio’s motion for summary
adjudication on this issue is DENIED”

The full decision is available in its entirety here [3], and you can
read the transcript from the oral arguments from the hearing [4]. 

With that decided, we now turn our focus to our own filing, a “Motion
for Summary Adjudication”. An MSA is very similar to a motion for
summary judgment, except that it does not fully resolve the entire case.
Our MSA asks to resolve substantial parts of the case that are a matter
of law.

Our motion seeks to establish that distributors of GPL'd software, such
as Vizio, have a duty to the recipients of the software, such as
purchasers of Vizio TV sets, to provide the source code for the software
upon request. Unfortunately many companies completely ignore source code
requests from consumers, or do not provide complete corresponding
source, when the license sets out their obligations clearly. We have
asked to confirm that Vizio has a duty to us, as purchasers of their
televisions, to make good on those obligations. In her order, Judge Leal
acknowledged that this kind of power imbalance between corporations and
recipients of copyleft software creates an inequity when it comes to
receiving source code:

“Defendant Vizio, as the licensee, is responsible for ensuring that it
complies with the terms of the license. As such, it would be more
equitable to allow third parties to assert claims against a licensee who
fails to adhere to the terms and conditions of the license.”

We focus on protecting the rights of all end users as third party
beneficiaries and making sure that corporations who choose to use
copyleft licenses are held accountable if they fail to follow the rules.
As this case continues to unfold, we will continue to protect the
freedoms given to us by copyleft licenses. This work is essential for
the Software Right to Repair, and we will work to create legal
mechanisms to ensure our devices are as free, open and repairable as
possible.

You can help fund our continuing work in this case by becoming a
Sustainer [5] to our organization. We rely upon individuals to make the
important work we do possible and if you make a contribution before
January 15th during our annual fundraiser, our funding matchers will
double your donation!

[0] https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html
[1] https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/glossary.html#summary-judgment
[2] https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/glossary.html#third-party-beneficiary
[3] https://sfconservancy.org/docs/Order_Denying_Vizio_Motion_for_Summary_Judgement_12-29-23.pdf
[4] https://sfconservancy.org/news/2023/oct/12/transcript-msj-hearing/
[5] https://sfconservancy.org/sustainer/#annual