[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Tom Tom and Microsofts Linux patent lock-down ..

From: Rjack
Subject: Re: Tom Tom and Microsofts Linux patent lock-down ..
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 17:06:07 -0400
User-agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20090302)

Rahul Dhesi wrote:
Rjack <> writes:


Jacob Maxwell Inc., v. Veeck, 110 F.3d 749 (11th Cir. 1997).
...Seventh Circuit's ruling:

Rjack, you seem to be trying to learn and argue basic concepts of
contract law by reading and quoting federal cases. The federal courts, including the US Supreme Court, may sometimes apply state contract law, but they do define or develop it and they do not establish the meanings of common-law terms. For all that they must defer to the state courts.

The *federal* courts apply the state common law of the geographical
district as *they* (meaning the federal courts) believe the state
courts would have . Attempting to argue that a federal circuit court
ruling conflicts with state court interpretation will get you
laughed out of federal district court.

I also that notice you have broadened your scope of "contracts" to
include non-copyright or non-patent contracts. Federal courts have
original jurisdiction over these claims regardless of which state
the federal districts reside in.

I think you should to go back to state law, and focus on that for
 a while, and study the basic concepts.

Please don't spank me Professor Dhesi. I was probably reading the
ALR's Restatement of Contracts and Corbin on Contracts when you were
still peeing in a diaper.

And the next few cases you quote to make your contract-law-based arguments ought to be state cases, not federal cases.

Yeah... especially since the federal courts have original jurisdiction over copyright suits.

Here's a really interesting counter-claim *state* case which applied
ingenious jurisdiction arguments and disagreed with the *very* open
source friendly ProCD decision of the Seventh Circuit. I have often
cited this Indiana Supreme Court decision in support of my claims of
GPL preemption:

"The Greens, relying principally on ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86
F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996), contend the parties’ agreement provides
the extra element necessary to avoid preemption of their claims,
effectively converting what would be an infringement claim against a
stranger to the contract into a breach of contract claim against
Hendrickson in its capacity as a promisor. Prevailing federal
authority is against the Greens on this point of federal law.";
Green v. Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 751 N.E.2d 815.

Rjack :)

reply via email to

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