Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar

[Rjack]

Rahul Dhesi wrote:

> 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.

A difference without a distinction. *All* federal jurisdiction is
derived from the Constitution. There is no such thing or concept as
"non-Constitutional" standing in federal cases.

Prithee let me count the ways I have pointed to the fact that SFLC
plaintiffs also have no standing under Article III jurisprudence
because they are claiming rights intended for "all third parties":

"Apart from this minimum constitutional mandate, this Court has
recognized other limits on the class of persons who may invoke the
courts' decisional and remedial powers. First, the Court has held
that when the asserted harm is a "generalized grievance" shared in
substantially equal measure by all or a large class of citizens,
that harm alone normally does not warrant exercise of jurisdiction.
Second, even when the plaintiff has alleged injury sufficient to
meet the "case or controversy" requirement, this Court has held that
the plaintiff generally must assert his own legal rights and
interests, and cannot rest his claim to relief on the legal rights
or interests of third parties." Warth v. Seldin 422 U.S. 490 (1975).

> 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.

Since yours truly has, long ago, suggested application of Article
III analysis and others have duly taken notice of same, it appears
you're a dollar short and a day late with your sudden passion for
Article III analysis.

Why not just honestly admit that the Busybox plaintiffs had no
standing to file their frivolous, propagandistic lawsuits and be
done with the matter Rahul?

Sincerely,
Rjack :)