http://jmri.sourceforge.net/k/docket/279.pdf (NOTICE OF TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on December 17, 2008. (jswlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/17/2008))
"[[...]]" below is my own remarks, not judge's. ----- [...] Motion for Preliminary Injunction 1. As Defendants have already admitted to infringement [[ did they? there's the reference?? ]], there is likelihood of success on the merits of Plaintiffs copyright infringement claim. The sole issue before this Court is a demonstration of irreparable harm or a clear disparity in the relative hardships tipping in Plaintiffs favor. See eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, LLC, 547 U.S. 388 (2006). The Federal Circuit found that the lack of money changing hands in open source licensing should not be presumed to mean that there is no economic consideration, however. The substantial benefits, which might constitute irreparable injury in the context of this motion, are generating market share for program creators, benefit to the program developers reputation, and improvements in the software. See Jacobsen v. Katzer, 535 F.3d 1373, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2008). This potential harm is not compensable with money damages [[ really? :-) ]] and therefore an injunction is appropriate. On what basis do Defendants contend that such harm has not been demonstrated, given the procedural history of this matter? 2. If the Court finds there has been a demonstration of [[ irreparable? ]] harm by the Federal Circuits definition [[ LOL ]], and likelihood of success on the merits [[ based on what? there's the reference?? ]] due to the admitted infringement [[ which one? there's the reference?? ]], the issue before the Court is the scope of the injunction [[ LOL ]]. What is the best language to encapsulate the material allegedly infringed? In terms of drafting the scope of the injunction, should the Court borrow from the Federal Circuits decision which defines the admission of infringement as portions of the DecoderPro software [which] were copied, modified, and distributed as part of the Decoder Commander software. [[ LOL ]] Jacobson v. Katzer, 535 F.3d at 1379. 3. In terms of the scope of the injunction, how can the Court enjoin the use of the old versions of Defendants products, which Plaintiff claims he (and, presumably, other users) may still access and utilize the old versions of Defendants products [[ ROFL ]]? 4. Do the partes have anything further they wish to address? IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 17, 2008 JEFFREY S. WHITE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ----- Ha ha. regards, alexander. -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
