[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: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: Psystar's legal reply brief in response to Apple
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 15:58:16 -0000
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux)

RJack <> writes:

> On 8/8/2010 12:07 PM, ZnU wrote:
>> Basically, to argue that the Jacobsen v. Katzer reasoning doesn't
>> apply to the GPL, you'd need to argue that there was some
>> _additional_ factor relevant to the GPL that somehow undermined its
>> use of the same language that was held to create a condition
>> precedent in Jacobsen. What might that factor be?
> The Artistic License is not the General Public License.
> What you *will never admit to* is that the phrase "provided that"
> omits the preposition "before" as in "provided that before".

What you will never admit to is that judges have a brain rather than a
linguistic computing circuitry which will brown out according to your
fantastic theories shoestringed together along the lines of your wishful
thinking.  Legal documents are not word games.

David Kastrup

reply via email to

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