[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Utterly imbecile pinky communist Ninth Circuit 'judges' (Vernor scan

From: RJack
Subject: Re: Utterly imbecile pinky communist Ninth Circuit 'judges' (Vernor scandalous ruling)
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 16:01:18 -0000
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv: Gecko/20100802 Thunderbird/3.1.2

On 9/15/2010 6:54 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

Vernor opinion also contradicts the 2nd Cir.

This excerpt from the Second Circuit opinion,

"Such a result would contradict the Copyright Act's 'express objective
of creating national, uniform copyright law by broadly preempting state
statutory and common- law copyright regulation.' Cmty. for Creative
Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730, 740, 109 S.Ct. 2166, 104 L.Ed.2d 811
(1989); see also 17 U.S.C. ยง 301(a)."; Krause v. Titleserv, Inc., 402
F.3d 119, (2nd Cir. 2005)."

strikes at the heart of the present controversy in Vernor v. Autodesk
in the Ninth Circuit. Copy licenses are contracts and the Erie doctrine
governing jurisdiction over questions of federal and state law conflict
seems to dictate that contract interpretation is a matter for state
common law. See for example,

"Although the United States Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C.  101-1332, grants
exclusive jurisdiction for infringement claims to the federal courts,
those courts construe copyrights as contracts and turn to the relevant
state law to interpret them."; Automation by Design, Inc. v. Raybestos
Products Co., 463 F.3d 749, (United States Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit 2006).

To understand this problem, this paper can be  very instructive.

Whenever state common law implies that the effect of a copyright statute
will vary appreciably from one state jurisdiction to another, the
federal courts try to minimize the differences by creating a synthetic
"federal common law". The fifty states each have their own common law
governing the sales of personal property such as material copies of
works. A similar problem arises with the thirteen independent federal
appellate circuits, each with its own idea of what "federal common law"
should be. Until the Supreme Court resolves the circuit conflicts,
copyright licenses remain in a state of national schizophrenia.

RJack :)

reply via email to

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