On 4/18/2010 9:23 AM, RJack wrote:
The erroneous non-precedential Jacobsen decision is strictly limited to the one past defendant in a nation of 310 million people. So... what's your point?
That since the CAFC JMRI decision is correct and correctly reasoned, other courts in like circumstances will adopt the same reasoning and reach the same conclusions. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
