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

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

Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean


From: Rjack
Subject: Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2009 15:42:10 -0400
User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302)

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

Your remark concerning "use" is interesting. There is a subtle distinction between "use" in the context of patents and that of copyrights. The patent grant states:

[ a long, tedious, legal argument ]

More and more, when I read Rjack's flawed and tedious arguments that despite quoting many alleged legal authorities repeatedly come to erroneous conclusions, I'm reminded of the lawsuit filed by a plaintiff identifying himself as Daniel Wallace. Just like Rjack goes on and on, so did Wallace. Each time his complaint in court proved to be worthless, he amended it and refiled it, and kept going until the judge finally told him he had had enough chances. Wallace still didn't give up -- he kept going until the Seventh Circuit, too, told him enough. <http://altlaw.org/v1/cases/157903>.


Rjack, like Wallace, won't give up. As soon as he loses the argument, he reposts it under a new subject heading.

Rjack, like Wallace <http://www.danwal.com/rescission.html>, makes
a big deal of the word "rescission" and apparently does not distinguish between that and cancellation of a contract.

Rjack, like Wallace <http://www.danwal.com/preemption.html>. focusses a bit too much on preemption.

Is that like being a "bit too much" pregnant"? He. He.

It *wasn't* Rjack, Wallace or any other laymen who held:

"Although the United States Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C.  101-
1332, grants exclusive jurisdiction for infringement claims to the
federal courts, those courts construe copyrights as contracts and
turn to the relevant state law to interpret them".

It *was* the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in
Automation by Design, Inc. v. Raybestos Products Co., 463 F.3d 749,
(2006). Your arguments should aim to refute that principle.

Likewise, it *wasn't* Rjack, Wallace or any other laymen who held:

"Copyright preemption is both explicit and broad: 17 U.S.C. § 301(a)
prohibits state-law protection for any right equivalent to those in
the Copyright Act. . . We have held that "[s]ection 301(a) [of the
Copyright Act] preempts a state-created right if that right may be
abridged by an act which, in and of itself, would infringe one of the
exclusive rights listed in § 106".

It *was* the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in
G.S. Rasmussen & Assoc. v. Kalitta Flying Service., 958 F.2d 896
(1992). Your arguments should aim to refute that principle.

Is there any significant difference between Rjack and Wallace?

I wish to thank you Rahul, for finally abandoning any claim of success
using logical argument supported by legal authority. Your surrender
to ad hominem tactics demonstrates that you have finally abandoned
rational argument for claims of legal enforceability for the GPL.
You deserve credit for showing your true colors -- a white flag
of surrender.

Sincerely,
Rjack :)


reply via email to

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