Rjack <[email protected]> writes: >Present a rational, logical argument supported by legal authority and >have at it. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with disagreeing with >a court when relying on alternate but conflicting legal authority.
The CAFC panel, comprising three smart people, already unanimously provided you with a rational, logical argument supported by legal authority. If that doesn't satisfy you, nothing will. The JMRI case may soon be heard again by the Ninth Circuit. If so, the Ninth Circuit will surely uphold the possibility of an injunction against those who misappropriate copyrighted software. And I predict that that won't satisfy you either. Rjack and Wallace quote a lot of case law fragments, but seem to not consider the point that the law is, in the end, all about dispensing justice. Denying a copyright owner any recourse against those who misappropriate his software would be an injustice. And generally the courts tend to lean against that. This simple fact explains why the CAFC ruled the way it did. At the end of the day, it's mostly about keeping things fair. -- Rahul http://rahul.rahul.net/ _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
