Re: The SFLC has pleaded their clients right out of court

[me]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> On 4/15/2010 9:43 AM, RJack wrote:
> > The statement ". . . (a) Plaintiffs’ copyrights are unique and
> > valuable property whose market value is impossible to assess, . .
> > ." automatically establishes the fact that any alleged injury is 
> > "conjectural and hypothetical". The SFLC lawyers have pleaded their
> >  clients right out of Court.
>
> Unfortunately for you, the court does not agree with you: 
> <http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf> The choice to
> exact consideration in the form of compliance with the open source
> requirements of disclosure and explanation of changes, rather than as
> a dollar-denominated fee, is entitled to no less legal recognition.
> Indeed, because a calculation of damages is inherently speculative,
> these types of license restrictions might well be rendered
> meaningless absent the ability to enforce through injunctive relief.

"[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).

Tell it to the United States Supreme Court and Justice Scalia.
ROFL.

Sincerely,
RJack :)