RJack <u...@example.net> wrote: > Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> RJack <u...@example.net> wrote: >>> Hyman Rosen wrote:
>>> I've told you a hundred times that the Jacobsen appeals court panel >>> violated CAFC rules. >> If you were correct, a single time would suffice. > With Hyman listening? ROFL. Maybe you've got a point there. >> Sorry, Rjack, by definition the opinion of that appeals court is the >> valid one. > Sorry Alan, some of you foreigners are utterly ignorant of that fact > that under U.S. law no appeals court can overrule the Supreme Court of > the United States: No, I grok that. Perhaps it is the case that this appeals court didn't actually overrule the Supreme Court. USA law is a complicated beast, you know. > "An unlicensed use of the copyright is not an infringement unless it > conflicts with one of the specific exclusive rights conferred by the > copyright statute. Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken, 422 U.S., at > 154-155."; SONY CORP. OF AMER. v. UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS, INC., 464 > U.S. 417 (1984). Katzer's behaviour violated such exclusive rights, namely by distribution and adaptation. >> Why can't you simply admit you've been mistaken on this issue for >> quite a long time? No shame in that, even the lower court got it >> wrong to begin with. > Because I'm not legally mistaken and *I* have the Supreme Court of the > United States on *my* side. Don't tell me - the chief judge there is your uncle, or something, and he consults you before each judgement is reached. > Sincerely, > RJack :) -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany). _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss