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: RJack
Subject: Re: Psystar's legal reply brief in response to Apple
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 15:58:08 -0000
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.7) Gecko/20100713 Thunderbird/3.1.1

On 8/7/2010 2:03 PM, ZnU wrote:
In article<address@hidden>, 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.


You are free to accept anything you wish. Why not read the case decision
for yourself?

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17776182574171214893&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

You can easily google the term "condition precedent" for yourself and
decide for yourself what it means. If you decide the appellate judge in
the Artistic License case was correct then you are thinking for yourself
and that's a good thing.

As for me, District Judge White who has a professional legal career
spanning over forty years http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_White
came to a conclusion very different from the Appellate Court. His ruling
was consistent with every decision I have ever read concerning
copyright licenses (the deciding factor for me) and "conditions
precedent". When I question a ruling of an appellate court I carefully
research the case law in general in a broad variety of contexts.

Perhaps your question could be re-phrased "why should I accept Judge
White's opinion with respect to whether the terms of a software license
are covenants or conditions over the opinion of another federal judge."

Google is your friend. Have at it.

Sincerely,
RJack :)




reply via email to

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