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

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

Re: Psystar's legal reply brief in response to Apple


From: ZnU
Subject: Re: Psystar's legal reply brief in response to Apple
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 15:58:06 -0000
User-agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.3b3 (Intel Mac OS X)

In article <address@hidden>,
 RJack <address@hidden> wrote:

> On 8/7/2010 5:29 AM, ZnU wrote:
> > In article<address@hidden>,
> > RJack<address@hidden>  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 opinion
> >>>
> >>> The 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.

That's not really an answer. I wasn't asking if the Jacobsen v. Katzer 
precedent was legally binding on the court hearing the Best Buy case. I 
was asking, essentially, why I should accept your opinion with respect 
to whether the terms of a software license are covenants or conditions 
over the opinion of a federal judge.

-- 
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes


reply via email to

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