Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar

[Rjack]

Rahul Dhesi wrote:
> Rjack <user@example.net> writes:
>
> > Why would I want to try that Rahul?
>
> > Just read the prevailing law in the Second Circuit where the 
> > SFLC filed its Busybox suits:
>
> > ...Whether this requirement is jurisdictional is not up for 
> > debate in this Circuit. On two recent occasions, we have 
> > squarely held that it is"...
>
> Ah! A jurisdictional argument that you were treating as one of 
> standing. This is why you should search for article III standing.
>  It will clarify the difference between standing and 
> jurisdiction.

Ah! Ha! Gotcha! Oh Goody, Oh Boy. . . so what's your gotcha point?

Courts exercise jurisdiction over litigant's that have standing.
Litigant's with standing are heard by courts with jurisdiction.

The district court had no jurisdiction because the SFLC's plaintiffs
had no standing. The SFLC's plaintiffs had no standing so the
district court was without jurisdiction. WTF is your point Rahul?
Beating a dead horse won't make it get up.

The Busybox plaintiffs had no standing to invoke the district
court's jurisdiction because the plaintiffs had no copyrighted
works registered with the Copyright Office. You can invoke semantic
gyrations forever but it won't change a thing -- no registration no
standing.

Sincerely,
Rjack :)