[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?

From: Rjack
Subject: Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 11:54:03 -0500
User-agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20080708)

Rahul Dhesi wrote:

Here is what the CAFC said in the JMRI case:

Here is what the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said (while sitting en banc) about its authority in copyright law matters:

"The freedom of the district courts to follow the guidance of their
particular circuits in all but the substantive law fields assigned
exclusively to this court [patents law] is recognized in the foregoing opinions and in this case."; ATARI, INC., v. JS & A GROUP, INC., 747 F.2d 1422, 223 USPQ 1074(Fed. Cir. 1984)(en banc).

There is about a one in one billion chance that *any* district court
*anywhere* will heed the ruling of the CAFC while ignoring the the controlling law of their respective appellate circuit courts. The JMRI decision isn't worth the paper it's printed on and you known it.

The CAFC directly contradicted the Ninth Circuit and district judge White. If you think that on remand, Judge White in the JMRI case is going follow a CAFC ruling that contradicts the authority of the Ninth Circuit, you've probably been smoking something illegal.

Rjack :)

reply via email to

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