Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/15/2010 5:45 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
See http://www.terekhov.de/Samsung-Answer.pdf for TWENTY (20) reasons why it is perfectly fine to 'steal' GPL'd work. Several additional reasons to the ones listed by Samsung can be found here:

Katzer had long lists of reasons why he should be able to steal JMRI's code too: <http://jmri.sourceforge.net/k/docket/290.pdf>. Long lists of reasons don't help unless they're long lists of correct reasons. These aren't.

"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).


RJack :)
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list

Reply via email to