amicus_curious wrote:
But when push came to shove, their injunction was denied since they could not show any value for the non-monetary issues.
No. A preliminary injunction was denied because the plaintiffs did not demonstrate the likelihood of irreparable harm should the preliminary injunction not be granted. And that's *did not*, not *could not* - they didn't try, because they thought they didn't have to: <http://www.goodwinprocter.com/~/media/9DB0FE31AE574BCA94F40689EE789316.ashx> It is important to note, however, that Jacobsen pled his case assuming the availability of a presumption of irreparable harm on a motion for preliminary injunction in a copyright infringement case. If Jacobsen had been aware at the pleading stage that evidence of actual harm would be of critical importance to his ability to obtain a preliminary Court cites to the portion of the Federal Circuit’s decision which states there are economic benefits to the distribution of open source software, including increase of market share and the reputation of a programmer or company. The District Court’s reasoning implies that had Jacobsen proffered any evidence of harm suffered related to these potential economic benefits, the outcome might have been different. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
