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

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

Re: Tom Tom and Microsofts Linux patent lock-down ..


From: Rjack
Subject: Re: Tom Tom and Microsofts Linux patent lock-down ..
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 08:18:11 -0400
User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Windows/20081209)

Rahul Dhesi wrote:
Rjack <address@hidden> writes:

Whether this [act] constitutes a gratuitous license, or one for
a reasonable compensation, must, of course, depend upon the circumstances; .... 273 U.S. 236, United States Supreme Court (1927).

Neither the Artistic License nor the GPL cleanly fit these models
(gratuituous license, or license for compensation). Remember, there was no free software in 1927. The CAFC ignored its own precedent because stare decisis does not apply to new types of facts.

The CAFC's copyright decisions are utterly irrelevant to U.S.
copyright law. The fact that "the CAFC ignored it's own precedent"
simply demonstrates your confused mind since the CAFC has no
copyright law precedent.

Which part of the following are you failing to grasp?

"Technically, the Federal Circuit's ruling will have no
precedential, effect. Because of an unusual quirk in US law, the
court had to apply the legal standards of a sister appellate court,
the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals; and the Federal Circuit's
interpretation of 9th Circuit law has no precedential value. "Even a
future Federal Circuit case on this area of the law must look again
to the regional [9th] circuit and not the Federal Circuit
interpretation," according to Harold Wegner, a partner in the
Washington, DC office of Foley & Lardner."
http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2008/08/26/us-court-finds-open-source-licences-enforceable-big-impact-seen-on-us-copyright-law/

Forget the CAFC decision it can only bind the District Court below
in that specific cause number.

FORGET THE CAFC'S ARTISTIC LICENSE DECISION IT HAS NO BINDING
PRECEDENTIAL VALUE *ANTWHERE* IN ANY U.S. COURT.

Since you're stuck on arguing the nuances of stare decisis, why
don't you use examples of Ninth Circuit decisions? They occasionally
ignore or misinterpret the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court then
reverses them on appeal.


So...

Then it is your position that an intellectual property license is
not a contract?

Perhaps you're intoxicated on FSF Kool-Aid. It is extremely
addictive to certain individuals with socialist tendencies.

Sincerely,
Rjack :)


reply via email to

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