Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

[RJack]

Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> RJack <user@example.net> wrote:
> > Hyman Rosen wrote:
>
> > I've told you a hundred times that the Jacobsen appeals court panel
> >  violated CAFC rules.
>
> If you were correct, a single time would suffice.

With Hyman listening? ROFL.

> Here's the *valid* opinion:
>
> [ .... ]
>
> Sorry, Rjack, by definition the opinion of that appeals court is the 
> valid one.

Sorry Alan, some of you foreigners are utterly ignorant of that fact
that under U.S. law no appeals court can overrule the Supreme Court of
the United States:

"An unlicensed use of the copyright is not an infringement unless it
conflicts with one of the specific exclusive rights conferred by the
copyright statute. Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken, 422 U.S., at
154-155."; SONY CORP. OF AMER. v. UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS, INC., 464 U.S.
417 (1984).

"[U]nless we wish anarchy to prevail within the federal judicial
system, a precedent of this Court must be followed by the lower
federal courts no matter how misguided the judges of those courts
may think it to be."; HUTTO v. DAVIS, 454 U.S. 370 (1982).

> Why can't you simply admit you've been mistaken on this issue for 
> quite a long time?  No shame in that, even the lower court got it 
> wrong to begin with.

Because I'm not legally mistaken and *I* have the Supreme Court of the
United States on *my* side. You have Hyman Rosen on yours... (sounds of
chortling and mirth).

Sincerely,
RJack :)