Bob Cumbow asked about whether Sony's contributory infringement case included a claim against any direct infringers; John Allison responded that he thought not.
In fact, Plaintiffs in Sony filed suit against Sony, 4 retailers, Sony's advertising agency, and one William Griffiths, an individual owner and user of a Betamax. Griffiths was a client of one of the lawyers at the firm representing Universal and Disney, and he consented to be sued on the understanding that neither plaintiff would seek seek damages or costs from him; he was not represented by counsel. (This from Judge Ferguson's opinion at the trial court level.) I also have a vague recollection that I read in Lardner's 1987 New Yorker article, "Annals of Law: The Betamax Case", that there was a second individual Betamax user named as a defendant, but that he was never served.
That isn't to say that contributory infringement cases have not gone forward without a direct infringer as a party; the indefensible Teddy Ruxpin opinions, for instance, didn't include any five year old defendants.(Worlds of Wonder v. Veritel Learning Systems & Worlds of Wonder v. Vector Int'l both found the manufacturers of cassette tapes that could be played in a Teddy Ruxpin toy to be contributory infringers, on the theory that children who played the tapes using their Teddy Ruxpin toys created infringing derivative works).
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:32 GMT