Re: Is the GPL all encompassing?

[Rjack]

Hyman Rosen wrote:

>> I grant that you can run around quoting from old cases... <<

Did you also "grant" District Court Judge the right to quote from
"old cases"? To wit:

"However, implicit in a nonexclusive license is the promise not to
sue for copyright infringement. See In re CFLC, Inc., 89 F.3d 673,
677 (9th Cir. 1996), citing De Forest Radio Telephone Co. v. United
States, 273 U.S. 236, 242 (1927) (finding that a nonexclusive
license is, in essence, a mere waiver of the right to sue the
licensee for infringement); see also Effects Associates, Inc. v.
Cohen, 908 F.2d 555, 558 (9th Cir. 1990) (holding that the granting
of a nonexclusive license may be oral or by conduct and a such a
license creates a waiver of the right to sue in copyright, but not
the right to sue for breach of contract)."; ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS; GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE; AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION.

I certainly hope that you did Hymen, since Judge White is the only
judge that has the authority to enter a judgment in the JMRI case.

>>  But the JMRI appeal settled that, addressing exactly the issue
in question. <<

The only thing the CAFC "settled" was the fact that in matters of
*copyright law* the panel has just enough "authority" to use the
bathroom without permission:

"Accordingly, we deem it appropriate here to decide non-patent
matters in the light of the problems faced by the district court
from which each count originated, including the law there
applicable. In this manner, we desire to avoid exacerbating the
problem of intercircuitconflicts in non-patent areas. A district
court judge should not be expected to look over his shoulder to the
law in this circuit, save as to those claims over which our subject
matter jurisdiction is exclusive. [Footnote omitted.] ... The
freedom of the district courts to follow the guidance of their
particular circuits in all but the substantive law fields assigned
exclusively to this court is recognized in the foregoing opinions
and in this case."; ATARI, INC., v. JS & A GROUP, INC., 747 F.2d
1422, 223 USPQ 1074 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (en banc).

Judge White will enter judgment following the "old cases" that are
controlling law in the Ninth Circuit "the law there applicable".

Sincerely,
Rjack :)

***** Plaintiff’s Claim Sounds in Contract, Not Copyright. *****