[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: More FSF hypocrisy

From: Hyman Rosen
Subject: Re: More FSF hypocrisy
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 16:15:27 -0400
User-agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20081209)

amicus_curious wrote:
But when push came to shove, their injunction was denied since they could not show any value for the non-monetary issues.

No. A preliminary injunction was denied because the plaintiffs
did not demonstrate the likelihood of irreparable harm should
the preliminary injunction not be granted. And that's *did not*,
not *could not* - they didn't try, because they thought they
didn't have to:

    It is important to note, however, that Jacobsen pled
    his case assuming the availability of a presumption of
    irreparable harm on a motion for preliminary injunction
    in a copyright infringement case. If Jacobsen had been
    aware at the pleading stage that evidence of actual harm
    would be of critical importance to his ability to obtain
    a preliminary Court cites to the portion of the Federal
    Circuit’s decision which states there are economic
    benefits to the distribution of open source software,
    including increase of market share and the reputation of
    a programmer or company. The District Court’s reasoning
    implies that had Jacobsen proffered any evidence of harm
    suffered related to these potential economic benefits,
    the outcome might have been different.

reply via email to

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