Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar

[Rjack]

Rahul Dhesi wrote:
> "amicus_curious" <ACDC@sti.net> writes:
>
> > I don't know that they are "afraid" of Verizon, I think that 
> > they do understand the meaning of "dismissed with predjudice" 
> > though and have no way to complain of Verizon distributing 
> > executable code for Actiontec routers that is not accompanied 
> > by any source code or by any reference to a GPL license or even
> >  any acknowledgement of same.  Stay in denial, but that is not 
> > a good thing to do in the long run.
>
> A dismissal with prejudice just means you can't refile for a 
> violation that has already occurred.  You can always refile for 
> violations occuring after that.
>
> Rjack, how come you don't cite cases when amicus_curious gets the
>  law wrong?

OK Rahul. Here's your case from the United States Supreme Court:

"See also 18 Wright & Miller § 4435, at 329, n. 4 ("Both parts of
Rule 41 ... use the phrase 'without prejudice' as a contrast to
adjudication on the merits"); 9 id., § 2373, at 396, n. 4 (" '[W]ith
prejudice' is an acceptable form of shorthand for 'an adjudication
upon the merits"')".;SEMTEK INT’L INC. V. LOCKHEED MARTIN CORP. 531
U.S. 497 (2001) http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/99-1551P.ZO

The above ruling is *binding* on every federal court in the land.

The phrase "adjudication upon the merits" should give you and Hymen
pause for long, sober thought. An "adjudication upon the merits"
gives rise to collateral estoppel and issue preclusion for any
issues THAT COULD HAVE BEEN LITIGATED in the Verizon complaint. The
SFLC almost certainly completely fucked itself in any *future* cases
via the idiotic Verizon voluntary dismissal WITH PREJUDICE.

You can count on one thing -- any future targets of SFLC harrassment
will receive via email a copy of the Verizon Complaint and Dismissal
with appropriate legal citation to collateral estoppel and issue
preclusion.

Happy now Rahul?

Sincerely,
Rjack :)