[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

From: RJack
Subject: Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2010 17:02:33 -0500
User-agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20090812)

Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 2/19/2010 3:26 PM, RJack wrote:
For one wrongly decided non-precedential case:

Court vs. crank again.

No, no Hyman, it's  Judge vs. Judge:

"The condition that the user insert a promin,ent notice of
attr noibution does not limit the scope of the license. Rather,
Defendants’ alleged violation of the conditions of the license
may have constituted a breach of the nonexclusive license,
but does not create liability for copyright infringement
where it would not otherwise exist." Judge White in
Jacobsen v. Katzer, 535 F.3d 1373 (N.D. CA 2007)

and Appeals Panel vs. Appeals Panel:

"In light of their facts, those cases thus stand for the entirely
unremarkable principle that "uses" that violate a license
agreement constitute copyright infringement only when those
uses would infringe in the absence of any license agreement at all."
Storage Technology Corp. v. Custom Hardware Engineering
& Consulting, Inc., 421 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2005)

17 U.S.C. § 501(a). "Use" other than reproduction, adaptation,
distribution, performance, and display does not amount to "copying"
under the Copyright Act, and is not, therefore, actionable under federal
law. 2 Nimmer, supra , § 8.01[A], at 8-13, 14. See, e.g. , G.S.
Rasmussen & Assocs., Inc. v. Kalitta Flying Serv., Inc. , 958 F.2d 896,
904 (9th Cir. 1992)(implicitly holding that the interest for which
plaintiff sought protection under state law -- the "use" of its
Supplemental Type Certificate as a basis for obtaining an airworthiness
certificate from the FAA -- fell outside the scope of the exclusive
rights granted under federal copyright law, and plaintiff's state claim
was not, therefore, preempted)."; DSC Communications Corp. v. DGI
Technologies, Inc. 81 F.3d 597 (5th Cir. 1996).

"Captain Moglen scared them out of the water!"


RJack :)

How many times have you been told that unverifiable settlement agreements are imaginary?

<> The settlement of the lawsuit defines legal requirements of the parties, and is often put in force by an order of the court after a joint stipulation by the parties. In other situations (as where the claims have been satisfied by the payment of a certain sum of money) the plaintiff and defendant can simply file a notice that the case has been dismissed.

reply via email to

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