amicus_curious wrote:
The district court then dismissed the injunction on the basis
> that the plaintiff had not shown that there was any non-monetary > harm either and pointed to a Supreme Court opinion that has > modified the Draconian terms of some of the previously held
copyright doctrines.
That "had not shown" is literal - the district court said that the plaintiffs could refile their complaint and detail the non-monetary harm. For what it's worth, I think the district court did not properly follow the appeals court decision. But we'll see what happens. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
