Re: Psystar's legal reply brief in response to Apple

[Hyman Rosen]

On 8/5/2010 12:43 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> It was explained to you many times

"Explained" would require argument, not wishful thinking.
"Explained" would require not hurling imprecations at a
judge with whom you disagree. You are "ranting".

> the Jacobsen case is *non-precedential*

Should any similar case arise, this case will be presented
as evidence of what another court found, regardless of whether
that decision is precedential in that case.