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

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

Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled


From: Alan Mackenzie
Subject: Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 07:47:07 +0000 (UTC)
User-agent: tin/1.6.2-20030910 ("Pabbay") (UNIX) (FreeBSD/4.11-RELEASE (i386))

RJack <address@hidden> wrote:
> Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>> RJack <address@hidden> wrote:
>>> Hyman Rosen wrote:

>>> I've told you a hundred times that the Jacobsen appeals court panel
>>>  violated CAFC rules.

>> If you were correct, a single time would suffice.

> With Hyman listening? ROFL.

Maybe you've got a point there.

>> Sorry, Rjack, by definition the opinion of that appeals court is the 
>> valid one.

> Sorry Alan, some of you foreigners are utterly ignorant of that fact
> that under U.S. law no appeals court can overrule the Supreme Court of
> the United States:

No, I grok that.  Perhaps it is the case that this appeals court didn't
actually overrule the Supreme Court.  USA law is a complicated beast, you
know.

> "An unlicensed use of the copyright is not an infringement unless it
> conflicts with one of the specific exclusive rights conferred by the
> copyright statute. Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken, 422 U.S., at
> 154-155."; SONY CORP. OF AMER. v. UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS, INC., 464
> U.S.  417 (1984).

Katzer's behaviour violated such exclusive rights, namely by distribution
and adaptation.

>> Why can't you simply admit you've been mistaken on this issue for 
>> quite a long time?  No shame in that, even the lower court got it 
>> wrong to begin with.

> Because I'm not legally mistaken and *I* have the Supreme Court of the
> United States on *my* side.

Don't tell me - the chief judge there is your uncle, or something, and he
consults you before each judgement is reached.

> Sincerely,
> RJack :)

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).



reply via email to

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