Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

2010-02-24 Thread Alexander Terekhov
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 > > preced

Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

2010-02-24 Thread David Kastrup
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

Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

2010-02-24 Thread Alexander Terekhov
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. > >> > >

Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

2010-02-24 Thread Hyman Rosen
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

From the Best Buy et. al. case

2010-02-24 Thread RJack
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 t

Re: From the Best Buy et. al. case

2010-02-24 Thread Hyman Rosen
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 Insig

Re: From the Best Buy et. al. case

2010-02-24 Thread RJack
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 dism