Re: Compliance detection tool

[RJack]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> On 4/17/2010 4:58 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > The US Court of Appeals, the US Court of Appeals... c'mon Hyman, 
> > face the truth: the silly opinion that you so much love is a 
> > product of a district court level judge from New Jersey who managed
> >  to deliberately misread and misapply California contract law 
> > (Diepenbrock v. Luiz, 159 Cal. 716 (1911). BTW, she is a well known
> >  unreasonable bitch:
>
> "If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts.
       You don't.
> If you have the law on your side, pound the law.
       You don't.
> If you have neither on your side, pound the table."
       Is is your hand sore yet Hyman?
> How sad for you, when bitter and hateful name-calling is all you have
>  left.

The erroneous non-precedential Jacobsen decision is strictly limited
to the one past defendant in a nation of 310 million people. So...
what's your point? That legal errors propagate like rabbits?


"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.

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).

As the Supreme Court reiterated:

"[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).