P2 is the first section that I quoted, above.
P15 has “distribution or transfer of the [EndNote] Software” emphasized, implying that such distribution occurred.
P23 is the second section that I quoted, above.
P36 again discusses a breach by “distributing and transferring the EndNote Software’s proprietary .ens style files.”
Relief C seeks that Zotero “terminate the ability to …. further distribute any .csl style files that were converted from the EndNote Software’s proprietary .ens style files to Zotero’s .csl style files.”

Also: many paragraphs that complain about the conversion mention that CSL files are “freely distributable.” This is true–currently, there is no EULA for Zotero or various CSL generators that attempt to place a license on files created by end users. It is misleading, though: Zotero had essentially let people use ENS files as-is in a read-only fashion, without generating stand alone CSL files that people could distribute.

It looks like the timing of the complaint, and this extraordinary demand to kill Zotero functionality for Zotero users, is related to the imminent release of a Zotero update that would create a shared Zotero commons: Zotero users could easy share their source data with other Zotero users.

After perusing the complaint (for a post over on the Marquette Faculty blog), I have a different theory. It looks to me like the complaint was timed to block the addition of a new functionality to Zotero: the ability to convert .ens files to .csl files. (See paras. 20-21.) Maybe the sharing is also part of it, but the complaint is pretty explicit about the “harm,” and it didn’t mention the sharing of .csl files, only the translation ability, unless I missed it.

It’s ironic that just today, I recevied an email from Thomson Reuters requesting that I participate in market research.

I wrote up a post about it urging academic who receive this email to NOT PARTICIPATE.

http://www.andrewcullison.com/2008/10/thomson-reuters-market-research/

If you receive the same email I did, maybe you could voice your concerns about the law suit.

is blatantly and freely distributing to third parties converted proprietary .ens style files from the EndNote Software

and that they are:

allowing and encouraging users of Zotero to freely convert the EndNote software’s proprietary .ens style files into open source .csl style files and further distributing such converted files to others.

Zotero includes thoustands of styles.

Finally, it does not have the ability to convert EndNote styles to Zotero styles–it could only use EndNote styles in a read-only fashion (though the suit alleges otherwise).

It only includes about 15 styles.

What it *does* include, according to the complaint, is the facility to *convert* EndNote output style files into Zotero output style files. It is this conversion facility that is at issue in this suit.

Given the fact that APA style is a APA style, it might be difficult to prove that Zotero took the shortcut of looking at the output style of EndNote, i.e. the apa.ens file and converted it to the Zotero output style

One might be able to look at things such as:

Does Zotero contain a style for every EndNote style? No.

Do EndNote and Zotero make the same mistakes or choose the same quirks in citations? Probably not.

Is there some proof of who developed styles & changes made to those styles? Yes–Zotero has a public version control system. There are discussions in the forums and points in their issue tracker corresponding to some wrinkles with certain styles.

but …. from my experience of modifying an EndNote *.ens file — it isn’t easy to create one and apply all of the rules necessary to get the output into the correct style. So I am sure it took lots of man hours to create these *.ens files. Don’t get me wrong, I love Zotero, so if someone takes the time to create all of these output files from scratch then more power to them, but I can also see ISI’s point if Zotero is taking their labor to shortcut the process in creating these output styles.

This is not happening. CSL is a better technology for citations. It is textual, which means that people can easily tweak a pre-existing style to suit the needs of a closely related style. There is an online style generator.

The connection is even more tenuous than that. The question is whether the Zotero output styles are “translations” or “derivative works” of the EndNote software. I.e., the whole thing.

INAL, but I don’t think it’s that direct even. I think the argument is either a) the Zotero styling system is reverse-engineered from Endnote’s, or b) all Endnote style files are a part of the Endnote product (and hence covered by the license).

The first is wrong, and the second so ridiculous as to be insulting.

Are Zotero output styles “translations” or “derivative” of EndNote output styles?

The connection is even more tenuous than that. The question is whether the Zotero output styles are “translations” or “derivative works” of the EndNote software. I.e., the whole thing.

It all falls down to whether the Zotero cls files were made by someone with the APA Publications manual or utilizing the EndNote *.ens file, unless I missed the point and there is something technical in the coding which the programs use to create or read these template files which is at the heart of the matter.

Are Zotero output styles “translations” or “derivative” of EndNote output styles?

No, they are not.

While Zotero could in theory export Endnote-derived CSL files, the team made the decision not to include this code so as to avoid any potential for just these sort of problems. So the core of this suit is based on incorrect (and, BTW, easily verifiable) information.