[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar

From: Rjack
Subject: Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 17:44:41 -0500
User-agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20081209)

Rahul Dhesi wrote:
Rjack <> writes:

Why would I want to try that Rahul?

Just read the prevailing law in the Second Circuit where the SFLC filed its Busybox suits:

...Whether this requirement is jurisdictional is not up for debate in this Circuit. On two recent occasions, we have squarely held that it is"...

Ah! A jurisdictional argument that you were treating as one of standing. This is why you should search for article III standing. It will clarify the difference between standing and jurisdiction.

Ah! Ha! Gotcha! Oh Goody, Oh Boy. . . so what's your gotcha point?

Courts exercise jurisdiction over litigant's that have standing.
Litigant's with standing are heard by courts with jurisdiction.

The district court had no jurisdiction because the SFLC's plaintiffs
had no standing. The SFLC's plaintiffs had no standing so the
district court was without jurisdiction. WTF is your point Rahul?
Beating a dead horse won't make it get up.

The Busybox plaintiffs had no standing to invoke the district
court's jurisdiction because the plaintiffs had no copyrighted
works registered with the Copyright Office. You can invoke semantic
gyrations forever but it won't change a thing -- no registration no

Rjack :)

reply via email to

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