Re: From the Best Buy et. al. case
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/24/2010 5:16 PM, RJack wrote: It doesn't mean anything until a court agrees. Huh? "IT DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING UNTIL A COURT AGREES" ??? ROFL Some Free Softies insist that a requirement of a court ruling is completely unnecessary and that plaintiffs' voluntary dismissals are complete vindication and "victories" over the defendants. This is in contrast to some GPL "trolls" whom claim only a court review of the GPL will mean anything. If there's anything I love, it's watching a Free Softy take both sides of an issue and then argue vociferously with himself. ROFL By the way, I was wondering why Best Buy was being sued. It turns out that the Insignia brand is owned by them, and an Insignia Blu-ray player comes with BusyBox. The Insignia Blue Ray Player was manufactured by the Funai Corp. out of Osaka, Japan. Funai clones were marketed under Phillips, Maganavox, Sylvania and other brand names. Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: From the Best Buy et. al. case
On 2/24/2010 5:16 PM, RJack wrote: Defendants intend to show... As usual in lawsuits, both plaintiffs and defendants make maximal claims. That's normal lawyering. It doesn't mean anything until a court agrees. By the way, I was wondering why Best Buy was being sued. It turns out that the Insignia brand is owned by them, and an Insignia Blu-ray player comes with BusyBox. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
From the Best Buy et. al. case
From the Erik Andersen vs. Best Buy et. al. Scheduling Order entered Feb. 22, 2010 appearing on PACER as case no. 1:09-cv-10155-SAS "Shira A. Scheindlin U.S.D.J. ... 2. A concise statement of the issues as they then appear; Pending results of Defendants' investigations, Defendants intend to show that the Plaintiff's have no damages, that the Defendants did nothing actionable under copyright law, that any alleged copying was not willful, that Plaintiffs are not the proper parties, that the copyright held by Mr. Andersen is not applicable, and that, since being put on notice of the purported requirements of the general public license, Defendants have endeavored to come into compliance with what can only be described as a 'moving target'." Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled
the CAFC error Crank vs. court. There is no "error" in the CAFC ruling unless and until another court says so. > a waste of SCOTUS time The decision would need to be appealed to them, and since the case is settled, that won't happen. Not that they would grant cert in something like this anyway. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled
David Kastrup wrote: > > Alexander Terekhov writes: > > > David Kastrup wrote: > >> > >> John Hasler writes: > >> > >> > RJack writes: > >> >> Hyman will just ignore the Supreme Court decision as if it didn't > >> >> exist and continue to quote the Federal Circuit's erroneous finding. > >> > > >> > If the Federal Circuit's finding is in conflict with Supreme Court > >> > precedents why has it not been appealed thereto? > >> > >> This likely should be considered addressed comprehensively with the > >> "scared them out of the water. LOL LOL LOL" babble. > > > > The appeal to CAFC was an interlocutory appeal (no final judgement) from > > an order regarding PI. For the purposes of granting or not granting PI, > > the CAFC error regarding confusion of conditions precedent v. scope > > restrictions v. covenants was made moot by later Winter v. NRDC decision > > of SCOTUS. Did you notice that judge White refused to grant the PI on > > remand as well? Correcting an utterly obvious error by a district judge > > from New Jersey sitting by designation on CAFC panel in a moot PI case > > would be quite a waste of SCOTUS time, don't you think so silly dak? > > Not interested in trying to figure out what you believe you are on this > time. After a few dozen of rotten fish from the same barrel, there's > not much incentive in dissecting another one. You're incapable of dissecting anything that doesn't align with your GNU cult religion, silly dak. Only utter GNU retards like you could not dissect simple facts akin to "IP licenses are contracts" because the GNU cult says that "licenses are not contracts". regards, alexander. P.S. "I'm insufficiently motivated to go set up a GNU/Linux system so that I can do the builds." Hyman Rosen The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' P.P.S. "Of course correlation implies causation! Without this fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress." Hyman Rosen The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' -- 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 gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled
Alexander Terekhov writes: > David Kastrup wrote: >> >> John Hasler writes: >> >> > RJack writes: >> >> Hyman will just ignore the Supreme Court decision as if it didn't >> >> exist and continue to quote the Federal Circuit's erroneous finding. >> > >> > If the Federal Circuit's finding is in conflict with Supreme Court >> > precedents why has it not been appealed thereto? >> >> This likely should be considered addressed comprehensively with the >> "scared them out of the water. LOL LOL LOL" babble. > > The appeal to CAFC was an interlocutory appeal (no final judgement) from > an order regarding PI. For the purposes of granting or not granting PI, > the CAFC error regarding confusion of conditions precedent v. scope > restrictions v. covenants was made moot by later Winter v. NRDC decision > of SCOTUS. Did you notice that judge White refused to grant the PI on > remand as well? Correcting an utterly obvious error by a district judge > from New Jersey sitting by designation on CAFC panel in a moot PI case > would be quite a waste of SCOTUS time, don't you think so silly dak? Not interested in trying to figure out what you believe you are on this time. After a few dozen of rotten fish from the same barrel, there's not much incentive in dissecting another one. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled
David Kastrup wrote: > > John Hasler writes: > > > RJack writes: > >> Hyman will just ignore the Supreme Court decision as if it didn't > >> exist and continue to quote the Federal Circuit's erroneous finding. > > > > If the Federal Circuit's finding is in conflict with Supreme Court > > precedents why has it not been appealed thereto? > > This likely should be considered addressed comprehensively with the > "scared them out of the water. LOL LOL LOL" babble. The appeal to CAFC was an interlocutory appeal (no final judgement) from an order regarding PI. For the purposes of granting or not granting PI, the CAFC error regarding confusion of conditions precedent v. scope restrictions v. covenants was made moot by later Winter v. NRDC decision of SCOTUS. Did you notice that judge White refused to grant the PI on remand as well? Correcting an utterly obvious error by a district judge from New Jersey sitting by designation on CAFC panel in a moot PI case would be quite a waste of SCOTUS time, don't you think so silly dak? regards, alexander. P.S. "I'm insufficiently motivated to go set up a GNU/Linux system so that I can do the builds." Hyman Rosen The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' P.P.S. "Of course correlation implies causation! Without this fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress." Hyman Rosen The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' -- 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 gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
