Re: Compliance detection tool

[RJack]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> On 4/16/2010 2:36 PM, RJack wrote:
> > Virtually all open source licenses are unenforceable due to lack of
> > Article III standing. Open source licenses in general are only
> > useful for defenses against copyright infringement suits.
>
> That's false, as we can see from this court decision:
> <http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf>
>     Having determined that the terms of the Artistic License
>     are enforceable copyright conditions, we remand to enable
>     the District Court to determine whether Jacobsen has
>     demonstrated (1) a likelihood of success on the merits and
>     either a presumption of irreparable harm or a demonstration
>     of irreparable harm; or (2) a fair chance of success on the
>     merits and a clear disparity in the relative hardships and
>     tipping in his favor.

The erroneous non-precedental Jacobsen decision is strictly limited
to the one past defendant in a nation of 310 million people. So...
what's your point? That legal errors propagate like rabbits?

"In Bandag, Inc. v. Al Bolser's Tire Stores, Inc., 750 F.2d 903, at 909
(Fed.Cir.1984), this court said:

Accordingly, we deem it appropriate here to decide non-patent matters in
the light of the problems faced by the district court from which each
count originated, including the law there applicable. In this manner, we
desire to avoid exacerbating  the problem of intercircuit conflicts in
non-patent areas. A district court judge should not be expected to look
over his shoulder to the law in this circuit, save as to those claims
over which our subject matter jurisdiction is exclusive.

The freedom of the district courts to follow the guidance of their
particular circuits in all but the substantive law fields assigned
exclusively to this court is recognized in the foregoing opinions and in
this case."; ATARI, INC., v. JS & A GROUP, INC., 747 F.2d 1422, 223 USPQ
1074  (Fed. Cir. 1984) (en banc).

"[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).

Sincerely,
RJack :)