"Hyman Rosen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
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.
Well you doubless lack the legal education of the district court judge so
the conventional wisdom is that he is more likely to be correct than you.
Even so, how do you think that Jacobsen can manage to show "irreparable
harm" in regard to Katzer's use of the code? Jacobsen, on his own admission
is not after any benefit, so failure by Katzer to provide any would seem to
be harmless in all cases.
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
