You aren’t understanding the judges statement. This only means that the conclusion necessary is sufficiently related to the accusation that additional assertions don’t need to be in the complaint for it to be legally sufficient as a claim of violation. That doesn’t mean that the facts charged in the complaint are proven (this is about whether there is even a chance to do that), nor does it mean that if the facts charged in the complaint are proven, the plaintiff doesn’t still have to prove the additional issue. It literally means “they’ve said enough that the complaint on this point is not dismissed out of hand before even getting to whether it can be proven” (the vast majority of the case was thrown out – though, except for a couple points, with leave to amend, so they may be able to fix the deficiencies.)
It says "assuming the facts of the complaint are true". I think you are seeing misunderstanding where there is none.
The facts need to be true in order for the facts to be true. However, assuming the facts charged in the complain are true in relation to how it get reproduced, one can infer it will be reproduced in a manner that violates the open-source license. It is not making a statement about additional issues.
Comments
You aren’t understanding the judges statement. This only means that the conclusion necessary is sufficiently related to the accusation that additional assertions don’t need to be in the complaint for it to be legally sufficient as a claim of violation. That doesn’t mean that the facts charged in the complaint are proven (this is about whether there is even a chance to do that), nor does it mean that if the facts charged in the complaint are proven, the plaintiff doesn’t still have to prove the additional issue. It literally means “they’ve said enough that the complaint on this point is not dismissed out of hand before even getting to whether it can be proven” (the vast majority of the case was thrown out – though, except for a couple points, with leave to amend, so they may be able to fix the deficiencies.)
It says "assuming the facts of the complaint are true". I think you are seeing misunderstanding where there is none.
The facts need to be true in order for the facts to be true. However, assuming the facts charged in the complain are true in relation to how it get reproduced, one can infer it will be reproduced in a manner that violates the open-source license. It is not making a statement about additional issues.