Re: The SFLC has pleaded their clients right out of court

[RJack]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> On 4/15/2010 9:43 AM, RJack wrote:
> > The statement ". . . (a) Plaintiffs’ copyrights are unique and
> > valuable property whose market value is impossible to assess, . .
> > ." automatically establishes the fact that any alleged injury is 
> > "conjectural and hypothetical". The SFLC lawyers have pleaded their
> >  clients right out of Court.
>
> Unfortunately for you, the court does not agree with you: 
> <http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf> The choice to
> exact consideration in the form of compliance with the open source
> requirements of disclosure and explanation of changes, rather than as
> a dollar-denominated fee, is entitled to no less legal recognition.
> Indeed, because a calculation of damages is inherently speculative,
> these types of license restrictions might well be rendered
> meaningless absent the ability to enforce through injunctive relief.



"In Bandag, Inc. v. Al Bolser's Tire Stores, Inc., 750 F.2d 903, at 909
(Fed.Cir.1984), this court said:

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.

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)

ROFL

"[U]nless we wish anarchy to prevail within the federal judicial
system, a precedent of this Court must be followed by the lower
federal courts no matter how misguided the judges of those courts
may think it to be."; HUTTO v. DAVIS, 454 U.S. 370 (1982).

ROFL

Sincerely,
RJack :)