Mary,
As is typical with your MO, you're shooting from the hip. You just make up
stuff so it appears you have rebutted a person's points, and in this case,
you've really f*cked up.
"The part you chose to miss is that Kearns was a precedent."
You missed the whole meaning of the statement you claim I chose to miss.
You are referring to the following statement:
"Kearns' position found unequivocal support in precedent from the U.S. Court
of Appeals and from the Supreme Court of the United States. See, e.g.,
Reiner v. I. Leon Co., 285 F.2d 501, 503 (2d Cir. 1960)"
This is NOT, I REPEAT, NOT saying that Kearns' case established precedent!
Infringement lawsuits have been going on for at least 200 years! WHAT IT IS
SAYING is that he had "unequivocal support" from cases out of the U.S.
Court of Appeals and the SupCt!!!!!!!!!!! One of the cases which Kearns
relied on (as precedent) was even cited for you!!!!!!!!!!!
See, e.g., Reiner v. I. Leon Co., 285 F.2d 501, 503 (2d Cir. 1960)
I.e., he ended up winning his cases because he was able to cite several
PREVIOUS cases similar to his AS PRECEDENT.
Don't quit your day job because you'd make a horrible lawyer.
Finally, I did NOT choose to miss anything. Your statement implies that I
intentionally left that out. I did NOT. Before hitting 'Send', I suggest
you scrub your postings of all negative implications when they pertain to
people other than you.
-Mark
