|
From: | RJack |
Subject: | Re: The SFLC has pleaded their clients right out of court |
Date: | Tue, 04 May 2010 16:16:15 -0000 |
User-agent: | Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Windows/20100228) |
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/15/2010 12:00 PM, RJack wrote:Hyman Rosen wrote:<http://www.sapnakumar.org/EnfGPL.pdf> "The GPL is Not a Contract"-- "Whether express or implied, a license is a contract 'governed by ordinary principles of state contract law.'"; McCoy v. Mitsuboshi Cutlery, Inc., 67. F.3d 917, (United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 1995) ---- "Normal rules of contract construction are generally applied in construing copyright agreements. Nimmer on Copyright sec. 10.08. Under Wisconsin law, contracts are to be construed as they are written." Amcast Indus. Corp. v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 584 N.W.2d218, 226 (Wis. App. 1998). 187 F.3d 690 (7th Cir. 1999) -- -- "Although the United States Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 101- 1332,grants exclusive jurisdiction for infringement claims to the federal courts, those courts construe copyrights as contracts and turn to the relevant state law to interpret them."; Automation by Design, Inc. v. Raybestos Products Co., 463 F.3d 749, (United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 2006) --<http://www.sapnakumar.org/EnfGPL.pdf> The author is a Faculty Fellowat Duke University School of Law and a 2003 graduate of the University of Chicago Law School.
Perhaps you should contact him and explain to him why he's wrong.
The authors of the decisions I cited are comprised of six Federal Circuit Appellate Court judges and a sitting Federal District Court judge. All have had their qualifications vetted and approved by the full body of the United States Senate. Perhaps you should contact your non-tenured junior research assistant (three years out of law school) and explain to him the legal authority hierarchy of the United States Judicial Branch of government. No federal court in the last 83 years has ruled a copyright license to be anything other than a contract interpreted under state law. For your Faculty Fellow to publish his ludicrous claims without even acknowledging the precedents of the federal courts set the past 83 years renders him unfit and unqualified for a research position at *any* U.S. law school. Pee Jay over at Groklaw can blather some really stupid statements but today you have outdone Her Highness at all levels. Sincerely, RJack :)
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |