Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar

[Rjack]

Rahul Dhesi wrote:
> Rjack <user@example.net> writes:
>
> > > > I don't suggest that enforcement itself is the problem, it
> > > >  is the enforcement of meaningless requirements....
> > > The CAFC has ruled that these requirements are not 
> > > meaningless.
>
> > The CAFC opinion is advisory only and contrary to other 
> > circuits (including its own precedent) and California contract
> >  law. The District Court politely circumvented the holding and
> >  denied the requested injunction against Katzer on other 
> > grounds.
>
> There are four problems in your analysis. Maybe more, I may have
>  lost count.
>
> "The CAFC opinion is advisory only"...Ugh, no. The constitution 
> prohibits the federal courts from issuing advisory opinions.
>
> "..Contrary to other circuits and California contract law". This
>  is just your opinion unsupported by any citations. But even if
> it were true, it would not matter, because the CAFC is not bound
> by the other circuits or by California.



> "The District Court politely circumvented the holding and denied
>  the requested injunction against Katzer on other grounds."  Two
>  problems here.  First, what a district court does doesn't change
>  the law as established by the CAFC.

As has been repeatedly pointed out Rahul, the CAFC in it's own words
while sitting enbanc, has declared its own rulings in non-patent
cases do not bind the District Courts:

********************************************************************
"[In} Bandag, Inc. v. Al Bolser's Tire Stores, Inc., 750 F.2d 903,
at 909 (Fed.Cir.1984), this court said:

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 intercircuit conflicts 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).
http://vlex.com/vid/atari-inc-plaintiff-group-defendant-37649300
********************************************************************

Why is it that you choose to repeatedly ignore the CAFC's own
holding in this matter? Since the above ruling is from the CAFC
while sitting enbanc, it is binding on all future three judge panels
of the CAFC. You, just like the SFLC, are not entitled to make up
your own law as you go along.

> Second, the CAFC did not rule that an injuncton must be granted, 
> only that the district court had the power to grant one, so what 
> the district court did can't correctly be said to have 
> circumvented anything.