|
From: | RJack |
Subject: | Re: Psystar's legal reply brief in response to Apple |
Date: | Wed, 08 Dec 2010 15:58:03 -0000 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.7) Gecko/20100713 Thunderbird/3.1.1 |
On 8/7/2010 5:29 AM, ZnU wrote:
In article<qaadnWNQH_R5hcbRnZ2dnUVZ_oudnZ2d@giganews.com>, RJack<user@example.net> wrote:On 8/5/2010 3:34 PM, Hyman Rosen wrote:On 8/5/2010 3:11 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:Hyman Rosen is spin doctoring CAFC's Jacobsen opinionThe court ruled that the copyright conditions found in a specific open license were indeed copyright conditions such that copying without honoring them is copyright violation.And the Artistic License is not the GPL license. This is cognitively unacceptable to GPL crackpots on who have built their identity on asserting false legal claims concerning the GPL license.In what way are they different such that the Artistic License creates copyright conditions but the GPL does not? [snip]
The Best Buy Inc. suit is being tried in the Southern District Court of New York which resides in the jurisdiction of the Federal Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The district court is *compelled* to follow the precedents of the Second Circuit. Any copyright decision like the Jacobsen v. Katzer Artistic License decision which was decided in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is utterly irrelevant. The Federal Circuit *cannot* set precedent in copyright law in *any* Circuit -- its a court of appeals designated for patent cases. The case of Graham v. James 144 F.3d 229 (2d Cir. 1998) http://blog.internetcases.com/2009/02/18/retrospective-graham-v-james/ and its descendants in the Second Circuit will control the Best Buy Inc. copyright litigation. Sincerely, RJack :)
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |