[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: IBM's appellee brief in Wallace case

From: Alexander Terekhov
Subject: Re: IBM's appellee brief in Wallace case
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 16:28:05 +0200

Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> Ter, 2006-07-25 Ã s 11:35 +0200, Alexander Terekhov escreveu:
> > with GNUtians. It's like trying to prove a negative. GNUtians postulate
> > that pigs can fly and then expect you to disprove their claims. Here's
> > Judge Newman of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal
> > Circuit on license: "A license is governed by the laws of contract. See
> > McCoy v. Mitsuboshi Cutlery, Inc., 67 F.3d 917, 920, 36 USPQ2d 1289,
> > 1291 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ("Whether express or implied, a license is a
> > contract governed by ordinary principles of state contract law.")."
> > Jazz Photo v. ITC, (CAFC) 264 F.3d 1094, August 21, 2001.
> Come on Alex, are court documents official stuff or not?
> Because you seem to only take them as official documentation if they
> agree with your goals. If they don't then you say the judge is drunk :)

I take them as "official stuff" when they don't insult intellect. I gather
that you refer to an episode featuring drunken federal judges Tinder and 
Young... Tinder managed to "infer" an anticompetitive effect in Wallace 
allegations... a law firm refers Young to Tinder's subsequent ruling... and 
Young dismisses the case for Wallace "failure" to allege an anticompetitive 
effect. Drunken idiots.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]