Re: Compliance detection tool

[RJack]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> On 4/16/2010 2:50 PM, RJack wrote:
> > The erroneous
>
> It will be "erroneous" when another court says it is. Right now, it's
> a valid decision of a court.

The Supreme Court has already said it's erroneous.

"In Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U. S. 555, 560–561 (1992), we
held that, to satisfy Article III's standing requirements, a plaintiff
must show (1) it has suffered an "injury in fact" that is (a concrete
and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or
hypothetical; (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged
action of the defendant; and (3) it is likely, as opposed to merely
speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision."

"[U]nless we wish anarchy to prevail within the federal judicial system,
a precedent of this Court must be followed by the lower federal courts
no matter how misguided the judges of those courts may think it to be.";
HUTTO v. DAVIS, 454 U.S. 370 (1982).

> > strictly limited to the one past defendant in a nation of 310
> > million people
>
> And how many decided cases are there that reflect your erroneous view
> of open licenses?

My views are always correct and error free, therefore a case
reflecting my "erroneous view" is a logical impossibility.