Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar

[Rjack]

Rahul Dhesi wrote:
> Rjack <user@example.net> writes:
>
> [ out-of-context quotes again ]
>
> ...
> > 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 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). 
> > http://vlex.com/vid/atari-inc-plaintiff-group-defendant-37649300
>
> Why did you include a non-public link? Because you didn't want 
> others to see the context?

Your mouse is equipped with a "scroll button". Try using it
sometime Rahul. It makes the lines of text in your browser move
upward and into view.

> Here's a public link:
>
> http://www.altlaw.org/v1/cases/410894
>
> The case you cited was one in which the CAFC was explaining why 
> it ought to follow existing precedent in the circuit where a 
> district court sits whose ruling is being appealed.
>
> But if there is no existing precedent in that circuit, the above
>  does not apply. And that's why your quote is out of context and
>  irrelevant.
>
> Here's the important context that you omitted.
>
> In the trademark portion of this case, we will be guided by the 
> relevant law in the Ninth Circuit, to the extent it can be 
> discerned, and not require the district court here to follow 
> conflicting rules, if any, arrived at in other circuits.

Which part of:
*******************************************************************
"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 is recognized in the foregoing opinions
and in this case."
*******************************************************************

don't you understand Rahul? You seem to have a problem with the
concept of "context" -- didn't you see, ". . . in all but the
substantive law fields assigned exclusively to this court. . ."?
Dyslexic? Cognitively impaired?

Let me try to explain Rahul. The CAFC is saying the district courts
are not bound by the CAFC's rulings on any subject matter other than
patents. Since copyrights are obviously not patents the district
courts are free to follow the guidance of their particular circuits.
In the Jacobsen v. Katzer case this is the Ninth Circuit. District
Judge White in his ruling prior to appeal followed the guidance of
the Ninth Circuit and California contract law concerning
"conditions" -- which conflicted with the CAFC ruling.

JUDGE WHITE WAS NOT BOUND BY THE CAFC'S NON-PRECEDENTAL RULING ON
NON-PATENT SUBJECT MATTER (COPYRIGHT CONTRACTS).

Repeatedly objecting "it's out of context and irrelevant" is 
something you expect on Court TV soap operas.

Sincerely,
Rjack :)