[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: SFLC is SOL
From: |
RJack |
Subject: |
Re: SFLC is SOL |
Date: |
Tue, 04 May 2010 16:08:59 -0000 |
User-agent: |
Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812) |
RJack wrote:
Plaintiffs Humax, Western Digital, JVC, Versa and Best BUy correctly
asserted that the plaintiffs lack standing to bring the GPL claims.
The GPL attempts to grant benefits to all "third parties" (hence the
name "Public License"). Nowhere in the GPL is either actual party
(i.e. non-third party) to the contract named as a beneficiary. Thus
the plaintiffs have no Article III standing since they are not
contract beneficiaries.
"A plaintiff must point to some type of cognizable harm, whether such
harm is physical, economic, reputational, contractual, or even
aesthetic. . . But the injury in fact test requires more than an
injury to a cognizable interest. It requires that the party seeking
review be himself among the injured.” Koziara v. City of Casselberry,
392 F.3d 1302 (11th Cir. 2004)
Plaintiffs Humax, Western Digital, JVC, Versa and Best BUy correctly
asserted that the plaintiffs lack standing to bring the GPL claims.
The GPL attempts to grant benefits to all "third parties"
(hence the name "Public License"). Nowhere in the GPL is either actual
party (i.e. non-third party) to the contract named as a benificiary.
Thus the plaintiffs have no Article III standing since they are not
conract beneficiaries.
"A plaintiff must point to some type of cognizable harm, whether such
harm is physical, economic, reputational, contractual, or even
aesthetic. . . But the injury in fact test requires more than an injury
to a cognizable interest. It requires that the party seeking review be
himself among the injured.” Koziara v. City of Casselberry, 392 F.3d
1302 (11th Cir. 2004)
Sincerely,
RJack :)
- Re: Mining the Blogosphere, (continued)
- Re: Mining the Blogosphere, Alan Mackenzie, 2010/05/04
- Re: SFLC is SOL, Hyman Rosen, 2010/05/04
- Re: SFLC is SOL, David Kastrup, 2010/05/04
- Re: SFLC is SOL, RJack, 2010/05/04
- Re: SFLC is SOL, David Kastrup, 2010/05/04
- Re: SFLC is SOL, RJack, 2010/05/04
- Re: SFLC is SOL, Hyman Rosen, 2010/05/04
- Re: SFLC is SOL, RJack, 2010/05/04
- Re: SFLC is SOL,
RJack <=
- Re: SFLC is SOL, Hyman Rosen, 2010/05/04
- Re: SFLC is SOL, David Kastrup, 2010/05/04
- Re: SFLC is SOL, David Kastrup, 2010/05/04
- Re: SFLC is SOL, Rex Ballard, 2010/05/04
- Re: SFLC is SOL, Hadron, 2010/05/04
- Re: SFLC is SOL, amicus_curious, 2010/05/04
- Re: SFLC is SOL, David Kastrup, 2010/05/04
- Re: SFLC is SOL, Rex Ballard, 2010/05/04
- Re: SFLC is SOL, Hyman Rosen, 2010/05/04
- Re: SFLC is SOL, Alexander Terekhov, 2010/05/04