Re: Compliance detection tool

[Alexander Terekhov]

John Hasler wrote:
[...]
> I think that you would find that most lawyers would never cite an
> overruled decision.

Except in the case of the appellate court being the CAFC and the subject
matter being NOT patents and NOT something claimed against the United
States government you retard... especially regarding utterly silly
opinion produced by a District Court Judge sitting by designation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Federal_Circuit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Claims

See also:

http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/about.html

"The Federal Circuit is unique among the thirteen Circuit Courts of
Appeals. It has nationwide jurisdiction in a variety of subject areas,
including international trade, government contracts, patents,
trademarks, certain money claims against the United States government,
federal personnel, veterans' benefits, and public safety officers'
benefits claims."

See also:

http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/04/12/an-on-the-record-interview-with-cafc-judge-randall-rader/id=10115

"Rader: Yes. The job of an appellate Judge is to review a record for
reversible error; to correct errors. In order to correct errors based on
a record you need to understand the challenges of making a record, you
need to understand the challenges of administering a trial and narrowing
issues. As an example, I see very often in appellate practice where the
losing case will seize on some minor issue and try and elevate that to
an issue of great importance before the Court of Appeals when in fact
all of the parties had dismissed it as of marginal significance when
before the trial court. So the Appellate Court ends up considering and
making decisions on something which was only marginally considered by
the court below.

It strikes me that we ought to be reviewing the decisions that were made
below. We should not allow parties to present to us as if they were
major decisions, things that were part of the narrowing exercise, which
a trial court must necessarily do.

The value of sitting as a trial judge is you can recognize this. When
you have done it yourself you know what a challenge it is to narrow
issues and have developed a record that reflects your accurate
decisions.

Quinn: I know in the CAFC and I think in other courts as well it also
works in reverse, where some District Court Judges sit by designation.
Has that been beneficial to you and for the Court as a whole?

Rader: I think there have been two benefits to that. I think the
District Judges themselves have seen the Federal Circuit in action and
have become more acquainted with us and have gained more confidence in
the work we do. I think it has worked in reverse as well. The Federal
Circuit Judges have seen the District Judges and their marvelous
preparation to work with us and have gained more confidence in them and
their work. So it has been a wonderful institution strengthening
exercise for both the District Courts and the Federal Circuit."

LOL!

http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf

"The Honorable Faith S. Hochberg, District Judge, United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey, sitting by designation.

[...]

Thus, if the terms of the Artistic License allegedly violated are both
covenants and conditions, they may serve to limit the scope of the
license and are governed by copyright law.

[...]

Under California contract law, "provided that" typically denotes a
condition."

LOL!

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the
originality standards required by copyright law."

Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com> The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

P.P.S. "Of course correlation implies causation! Without this 
fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress."

Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com> The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm 
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can 
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards 
too, whereas GNU cannot.)