Open source lawyer Lawrence Rosen announced his paper interpreting
the impact of the CAFC's Artistic license decision in Jacobsen v.
Katzer.
http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:16069:200810:bhcocekdjcbikmbfcpmp
"The CAFC decision also requires district courts to enforce open
source license restrictions (another term like "condition" that has
ambiguous meaning here)through the remedy of injunctive relief.
Otherwise, "those types of license restrictions might well be
rendered meaningless." [Pg. 1382]"
http://www.rosenlaw.com/BadFactsMakeGoodLaw.pdf
Rosen concluded that the CAFC "requires" district courts to enforce
open source license under its appellate decision. He reached this
conclusion despite the fact the CAFC while setting enbanc ruled:
"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. . . 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 (Fed. Cir. 1984)(en banc).
There is a about a 0.0001 percent chance that the district court in
Jacobsen v. Katzer, upon remand, will follow the decision of the
CAFC instead of the controlling law of the Ninth Circuit.
Sincerely,
Rjack :)
|
