Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

[RJack]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> On 2/22/2010 4:33 PM, RJack wrote:
> > the entirely unremarkable principle that “uses” that violate a 
> > license agreement constitute copyright infringement only when those
> >  uses would infringe in the absence of any license agreement at all
>
> Yes. And the use here is copying and distribution, which infringes in
>  the absence of any license agreement at all.
>
> > (ND CA)
>
> Of what use is it to quote a district court ruling that was 
> overturned on appeal?

Of what use is it to quote an appeals court opinion that can't overrule
a prior precedent Hyman?

I've told you a hundred times that the Jacobsen appeals court panel
violated CAFC rules. Here's the *valid* opinion:


"Not only did the court not state that “uses” that fall outside the
scope of the license would necessarily constitute a copyright violation,
but the allegedly unlawful “use” in that case was the copying of
architectural plans. Id. at 32; see Data Gen. Corp. v. Grumman Sys.
Support Corp., 36 F.3d 1147, 1167 (1st Cir. 1994). In light of their
facts, those cases thus stand for the entirely unremarkable principle
that “uses” that violate a license agreement constitute copyright
infringement only when those uses would infringe in the absence of any
license agreement at all.";Storage Technology Corp. v. Custom Hardware
Eng'g & Consulting, Inc., 421 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

READ IT HYMAN.

Rule 35. En Banc Determination
(a) General.
(1) Arguing to a Panel to Overrule a Precedent. Although
only the court en banc may overrule a binding
precedent, a party may argue, in its brief and oral
argument, to overrule a binding precedent without
petitioning for hearing en banc. The panel will decide
whether to ask the regular active judges to consider
hearing the case en banc.
(2) Frivolous Petition. A petition for hearing or rehearing
en banc that does not meet the standards of Federal
Rule of Appellate Procedure 35(a) may be deemed
frivolous and subject to sanctions.
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/pdf/rules.pdf

The Jacobsen decision isn't even valid among CAFC decisions. See for
instance:

"With at least one notable exception, most every federal appellate court
takes the position that where two of its own rulings conflict on a point
of law, the ruling that issued first controls in the absence of
rehearing en banc."
http://www.law.com/jsp/law/LawArticleFriendly.jsp?id=900005556507


"Captain Moglen scared them out of the water!"
http://www.fini.tv/blog/finishing_line_files/a44f9390355368f87dc47b7ec094f93e-36.php

ROFL. ROFL. ROFL.

Sincerely,
RJack :)