[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Psystar's legal reply brief in response to Apple

From: RJack
Subject: Re: Psystar's legal reply brief in response to Apple
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 15:58:03 -0000
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv: Gecko/20100713 Thunderbird/3.1.1

On 8/7/2010 5:29 AM, ZnU wrote:
In article<>,
RJack<>  wrote:

On 8/5/2010 3:34 PM, Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 8/5/2010 3:11 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Hyman Rosen is spin doctoring CAFC's Jacobsen opinion

The court ruled that the copyright conditions found in a specific
open license were indeed copyright conditions such that copying
without honoring them is copyright violation.

And the Artistic License is not the GPL license. This is
cognitively unacceptable to GPL crackpots on who have built their
identity on asserting false legal claims concerning the GPL

In what way are they different such that the Artistic License creates
copyright conditions but the GPL does not?


The Best Buy Inc. suit is being tried in the Southern District Court of
New York which resides in the jurisdiction of the Federal Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit. The district court is *compelled* to
follow the precedents of the Second Circuit. Any copyright decision like
the Jacobsen v. Katzer Artistic License decision which was decided in
the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is utterly irrelevant.
The Federal Circuit *cannot* set precedent in copyright law in *any*
Circuit -- its a court of appeals designated for patent cases. The case
of Graham v. James 144 F.3d 229 (2d Cir. 1998)
and its descendants in the Second Circuit will control the Best Buy Inc.
copyright litigation.

RJack :)

reply via email to

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