Re: Actual Damages in JMRI Case

[Rjack]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > CAFC...silly...idiotic
>
> Stand by for another thrilling rerun of court vs. crank.

I don't understand all the bluster and noise concerning this erroneous
decision by the CAFC. The CAFC itself has ruled while sitting en banc
that:

"[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)

Which part of:

"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."

don't GNUtians understand?

Outside of *this* particular, unique case, the decision carries no
precedental authority at all -- it might as well be written on toilet
paper. In this dispute, District Judge White is compensating for the
obvious error of the CAFC's decision by denying the plaintiff's
requests for relief on other grounds. There's more than one way to
skin a skunk and Judge White obviously recognizes this fact.

Sincerely,
Rjack