Re: SFLC: "a penumbra"

[rjack]

Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> I find it rather interesing that this recent instance of "a penumbra"
> blah-blah filed by the SFLC is basically copy and paste from Eben's 
> SFLC underling Dan of PubPat brief in LabCorp v. Metabolite.
>
> http://www.pubpat.org/assets/files/AmicusBriefs/PUBPAT_LabCorp_SCt_Brief.pdf
>
> The Supreme Court dismissed LabCorp's petition for certiorari as 
> improvidently granted in a one-line per curium decision. As explained 
> in the dissent, the "technical procedural reason" for the dismissal 
> related to an alleged failure by petitioner LabCorp to litigate �101 
> issue in the proceedings below.
>
> In this case neither petitioner Microsoft nor respondent AT&T had and
> has any problems with �101 whosoever.
>
> So what is Eben hoping for?
>
> regards,
> alexander.

Seriously, the SFLC is using well known and recognized tatics. One tatic 
 is to repeat and distribute legal nonsense (amicus brief) to the 
general public often enough so that it assumes an aura of truth in 
people's minds.

Witness for example:

1) Saddam Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction.

2) A copyright license is not a contract.

3) Iraq was responsible for the World Trade Center attack.

4) The PTO grants "software patents" under § 101.

5) The World was created in 4004 B.C.

You will find an appreciable cross section of the (gullible)
general population that believe this kind of nonsense.