Re: Settlements

[RJack]

Hyman Rosen wrote:

> It doesn't matter how much you hate and disagree with this decision.
>  In the battle of crank vs. court, court always wins.

It doesn't matter how much you hate and disagree with the Supreme Court
the Supreme Court always wins.

In the battle of Supreme Court vs. moron, Supreme Court always wins.

> It doesn't matter how much you hate and disagree with this decision.
>  In the battle of crank vs. court, court always wins.


It doesn't matter how much you hate and disagree with the Supreme Court
the Supreme Court always wins.

In the battle of Supreme Court vs. moron, Supreme Court always wins.

> The only use here is copying and distribution, part of the exclusive
>  rights enumerated in 17 USC 106.

You forgot one word -- licensed.

The only [licensed] use here is copying and distribution, part of the
exclusive rights enumerated in 17 USC 106.

> Copying and distribution may only be carried out by others with 
> permission from the rights holders, and in the case of the Artistic 
> License and the GPL, such permission comes only when conditions are 
> adhered to.

That's only a grandiose dream of confused GNUtian and Marxist minds.

> When those conditions are not met, the copying and distribution will 
> constitute infringement.

They're "covenants" not "conditions". You obviously haven't the
slightest idea of how a "condition" is defined in legal language

> The CAFC has issued its decision. That decision stands regardless of
>  whether you believe it contradicts the SUpreme Court, until the 
> Supreme Court itself says otherwise. It doesn't matter how much you 
> hate and disagree with this decision.

The decision doesn't stand for anything at all. The CAFC sitting en banc
has setting controlling law for three judge panels of the CAFC:


"[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).


The number of future federal copyright decisions controlled by the
erroneous Jacobsen court (including any GPL suits) is exactly ZERO,
NADA, ZILCH. You'd find as much precedental authority by citing to a
Superman comic book.
ROFL.

The number of future federal copyright decisions controlled by the
Supreme Court's decision in Sony (supra)?

"[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).

ALL OF THEM !!!!
ROFL.

> In the battle of crank vs. court, court always wins.

In the battle of Supreme Court vs. moron, Supreme Court always wins.

Sincerely,
RJack :)