gnu-misc-discuss
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Psystar's legal reply brief in response to Apple


From: Hyman Rosen
Subject: Re: Psystar's legal reply brief in response to Apple
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 15:57:41 -0000
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.7) Gecko/20100713 Thunderbird/3.1.1

On 8/5/2010 12:43 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> It was explained to you many times

"Explained" would require argument, not wishful thinking.
"Explained" would require not hurling imprecations at a
judge with whom you disagree. You are "ranting".

> the Jacobsen case is *non-precedential*

Should any similar case arise, this case will be presented
as evidence of what another court found, regardless of whether
that decision is precedential in that case.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]