[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption

From: RJack
Subject: Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption
Date: Tue, 04 May 2010 16:08:04 -0000
User-agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20090812)

Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 3/9/2010 4:31 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
The Supreme Court of California. 159 Cal. 716, 115 P. 743 (1911). "The term 'provided' may or may not indicate a condition . . . it is often a nice question to determine whether it is a condition or a covenant and courts always construe similar clauses in a deed as covenants rather than as conditions, if they can reasonably do so .
 . ."

<> The Artistic License states on its face that the document creates conditions: "The intent of this document is to state the _conditions_ under which a Package may be copied." (Emphasis added.) The Artistic License also uses the traditional language of conditions by noting that the rights to copy, modify, and distribute are granted "provided that" the conditions are met. Under California contract law, "provided that" typically denotes a condition.

Sounds like CAFC found the question easy to answer. And now it's answered, to the dismay of anti-GPL cranks.

Tell it to the courts in Zimbabwe Hymen. U.S. federal district courts
ignore CAFC copyright decisions (erroneous or not) and are bound by
their established Circuit precedent. Judge Scheindlin is bound by Second
Circuit (or Supreme Court) precedent. The CAFC might as well be a third
world foreign court for copyright purposes:

"Accordingly, we deem it appropriate here to decide non-patent matters
in the light of the problems faced by the district court from which
each count originated, including the law there applicable. In this
manner, we desire to avoid exacerbating the problem of intercircuit
conflicts in non-patent areas. A district court judge should not be
expected to look over his shoulder to the law in this circuit, save as
to those claims over which our subject matter jurisdiction is
exclusive. [Footnote omitted.]
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).


RJack :)

reply via email to

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