Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar

[Rjack]

Rahul Dhesi wrote:
> "amicus_curious" <ACDC@sti.net> writes:
>
> > I don't suggest that enforcement itself is the problem, it is 
> > the enforcement of meaningless requirements....
>
> The CAFC has ruled that these requirements are not meaningless.

The CAFC opinion is advisory only and contrary to other circuits
(including its own precedent) and California contract law. The
District Court politely circumvented the holding and denied the
requested injunction against Katzer on other grounds.

The Jacobsen case was a severe setback for open source license
enforcement because of the District Court's reliance on the Supreme
Court's 'Winter v. National Resources Defense Council'.

Sincerely,
Rjack :)