Re: CAFC took JMRI case under advisement

[Alexander Terekhov]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> 
> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > Got it now?
> 
> No. I still fail to understand what you find shocking
> about the citation of Nimmer.

Go and drop am email to Nimmer et. al. asking whether a copyright
license is a contract or not. Let us know about his response.

http://www.fsf.org/news/wallace-vs-fsf

"What is there left to test? The GPL is a software license, it is not a
contract."

Professional lawyers hired to defend FSF (REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT FREE SOFTWARE FOUNDATION, INC) to dismiss for failure to state
a claim: 

"Plaintiff's mischaracterization of the GPL in his Response has no 
bearing on the resolution of the pending Motion to Dismiss because the 
Court can examine the GPL itself. "[T]o the extent that the terms of an 
attached contract conflict with the allegations of the complaint, the 
         ^^^^^^^^
contract controls." 
^^^^^^^^

The court didn't examine the GPL contract but dismissed nevertheless
(disclaiming jurisdiction).

"The final judgment in Wallace v. Free Software Foundation, Inc.
constitutes a void judgment under Seventh Circuit precedent. Judge
Tinder granted dismissal [Red Hat and Novell’s Supp. App. at 12]
pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted although the reason given was lack of
“antitrust injury” (lack of standing). In the Seventh Circuit, since the
decision in Frederiksen v. City of Lockport, 384 F.3d 437 at 438 (7th
Cir.
2004), issues of standing are required to be dismissed pursuant to
F.R.Civ.P. Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter-jurisdiction."

LOL.

regards,
alexander.

--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards
too, whereas GNU cannot.)