Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar

[Rahul Dhesi]

Rjack <user@example.net> writes:

>The district court had no jurisdiction because the SFLC's plaintiffs
>had no standing...

>The Busybox plaintiffs had no standing to invoke the district court's
>jurisdiction because the plaintiffs had no copyrighted works registered
>with the Copyright Office. You can invoke semantic gyrations forever
>but it won't change a thing -- no registration no standing.

Standing in federal cases comes from the constitution, while the
copyright registration requirement comes from statute. Two different
concepts. You are treating them as one. This is why I suggested that you
do a web search for article III standing. But it's OK, you are entitled
to your opinion. The suggestion to look up article III standing will be
useful to other readers who otherwise might get the wrong idea from your
postings.
-- 
Rahul
http://rahul.rahul.net/