Re: More FSF hypocrisy

[Rjack]

amicus_curious wrote:
> "Hyman Rosen" <hyrosen@mail.com> wrote in message 
> news:z5Sxl.45965$3S3.3834@newsfe22.iad...
> > amicus_curious wrote:
> > > But when push came to shove, their injunction was denied 
> > > since they could not show any value for the non-monetary 
> > > issues.
> >
> > No. A preliminary injunction was denied because the plaintiffs 
> > did not demonstrate the likelihood of irreparable harm should 
> > the preliminary injunction not be granted. And that's *did 
> > not*, not *could not* - they didn't try, because they thought 
> > they didn't have to:
> Well, the District Court judge gave them a chance to re-file, but
>  they chose not to do so.  Do you suggest that they just went 
> into the tank because they didn't feel like winning?

District Judge White was obviously at odds with the CAFC's ruling
interpreting Ninth Circuit precedential law. The plaintiff was
*never* going to receive his requested injunction.

There is more than one way to skin a skunk in the courtroom. Judge
White paid lip service to the CAFC's decision as the "trier of law".
But he was also the exclusive "trier of fact". A district court
judge can always find a way to see the facts as most favorable to
the defendant if he believes there is injustice in the law of the
decision (akin to the principle of "jury nullification").

> You are grasping at straws.

Sincerely,
Rjack :)