Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar

[Rahul Dhesi]

Rjack <user@example.net> writes:

>>> I don't suggest that enforcement itself is the problem, it is 
>>> the enforcement of meaningless requirements....
>> 
>> The CAFC has ruled that these requirements are not meaningless.

>The CAFC opinion is advisory only and contrary to other circuits
>(including its own precedent) and California contract law. The
>District Court politely circumvented the holding and denied the
>requested injunction against Katzer on other grounds.

There are four problems in your analysis. Maybe more, I may have lost
count.

"The CAFC opinion is advisory only"...Ugh, no. The constitution
prohibits the federal courts from issuing advisory opinions.

"..Contrary to other circuits and California contract law". This is just
your opinion unsupported by any citations. But even if it were true, it
would not matter, because the CAFC is not bound by the other circuits or
by California.

"The District Court politely circumvented the holding and denied the
requested injunction against Katzer on other grounds."  Two problems
here.  First, what a district court does doesn't change the law as
established by the CAFC.  Second, the CAFC did not rule that an
injuncton must be granted, only that the district court had the power to
grant one, so what the district court did can't correctly be said to
have circumvented anything.
-- 
Rahul
http://rahul.rahul.net/