Re: JMRI case -- Implementation of the Federal Circuit's Opinion

[Rahul Dhesi]

"amicus_curious" <ACDC@sti.net> writes:

>I think that the issue of consideration is paramount.  The copyright
>laws exist to protect the author's ability to benefit from the author's
>artistic cleverness.  If the author chooses not to benefit in a
>conventional way, the benefit that is expected must at least be defined
>clearly enough to determine if someone's alleged violations actually
>harm the author...

No, this is complete nonsense. Copyright law exists (in the US) to
encourage creation and dissmemination of creative works for the benefit
of the public.  "The Congress shall have Power...To promote the Progress
of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and
Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and
Discoveries."

Free software licenses fit nicely in this, because these licenses are
designed to encourage the wide dissemination of works thus licensed. And
I hope the JMRI attorney remembers to remind the court of this.

Yes, it may reasonable to require a plaintiff to show what damages he
has suffered, but not because that's the goal of copyright law.

You are mixing up (a) the goal of copyright law and (b) the goal of this
specific lawsuit.
-- 
Rahul
http://rahul.rahul.net/