Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

[RJack]

Alexander Terekhov wrote:

> http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/article.php?story=201002190850472
>  ("A Big Victory for F/OSS: Jacobsen v. Katzer is Settled")
>
> "With the case now settled, there can be no further appeals - meaning
>  that the rulings of the District and Appeals courts are now binding
> in their circuit.  Although federal courts in other circuits will not
> be bound this court's decision, the California circuit is well
> respected, and other federal judges nationwide will be influenced by
> its legal conclusions.

We must be vigilant concerning blogs that haven't the *slightest* idea
what they are talking about.

What fucking "California circuit"?

Judge White who, *opposed* the Jacobsen decision by the *Federal
Circuit* resides in the Northern District of California for the *Ninth
Circuit* Court of Appeals. Since the Federal Circuit has *no*
jurisdiction over copyright matters unless there is an ancillary patent
issue, they will probably never hear another case of this type. This
CAFC three member panel violated their own Federal Circuit rules by
overuling a prior 2005 CAFC three judge panel's decision:

"In light of their facts, those cases thus stand for the entirely
unremarkable principle that "uses" that violate a license
agreement constitute copyright infringement only when those
uses would infringe in the absence of any license agreement at all."
Storage Technology Corp. v. Custom Hardware Engineering
& Consulting, Inc., 421 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

District Judge White noted this conflict.

> As a result, the results of the Jacobsen v. Katzer could evenutally
> become the law of the land. "

I thought the "law of the land" was enshrined in the Constitution.
ROFL

Sincerely,
Rjack