 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: allencole
Date: 2009-11-07 08:38
Fascinating reading, but I'm glad it's only 13 pages. I can't imagine writing opinions for the other 426 cases. Yikes!
Allen Cole
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2009-11-07 12:58
Moral of story: Don't borrow from minimalist composers. 
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Berger
Date: 2009-11-07 14:31
UGH, what a sedative! No wonder our courts are flooded with trash. To me, the moral is "don't mess with copyright infringment, even if the words are "The Trouble I,ve Seen"". Don
Thanx, Mark, Don
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: tictactux ★2017
Date: 2009-11-07 14:43
> UGH, what a sedative!
Uh, I'm glad I'm not the only one ... I read the first paragraph (management summary, anyone?) and the spoiler on the last line and I think I'm done with law stuff for this year.
Why can't people simply ask before they just steal something?
--
Ben
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Lelia Loban ★2017
Date: 2009-11-07 15:12
>> UGH, what a sedative!>>
I disagree, and I hope the fear of legalese won't deter people from reading this case. It's true that I may find legal writing less perverse than it appears to many people, because, although I'm not an attorney, I used to work as an investigative researcher in product liability (mainly herbicide) cases. Also, my husband, now a bookbinder, is a retired attorney (a year with the U.S. Dept. of Justice Antitrust Div. and 28 years with the Environmental Protection Agency's Pesticides Div.) who still does pro bono work for environmentalist advocacy groups. But I can tell you from my experiences with reading case law that this judgment in the 6th Court of Appeals is well-written, in much plainer English than average, that IMHO it's easy to understand, and that (intentionally or unintentionally) it's a good laugh! It's not often we get to read legal jargon butting up against references to rhythmic panting, rap musicians with stage names such as Felony Davis and Snoop Doggy Dog and the disputed refrain, “Bow wow wow, yippie yo, yippie yea.”
>>Why can't people simply ask before they just steal something?>>
Yup. And that's the point, for people who really don't want to read the case.
Lelia
http://www.scoreexchange.com/profiles/Lelia_Loban
To hear the audio, click on the "Scorch Plug-In" box above the score.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2009-11-07 16:02
Lelia Loban wrote:
> But I can tell you from my
> experiences with reading case law that this judgment in the 6th
> Court of Appeals is well-written, in much plainer English than
> average, that IMHO it's easy to understand, and that
> (intentionally or unintentionally) it's a good laugh!
I read the different Courts of Appeal decisions weekly for trademark, patent, and copyright decisions (I use the Findlaw service) - and I agree that the 6th produces some of the most cogent and well-written decisions I encounter.
Assuming that I can recognize cogent & well-written legal opinions - IANAL.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Berger
Date: 2009-11-07 17:17
You are certainly right, Lelia, I just let the hiliarity [sp?] obscure the importance of such proceedings. In the past, I've been priviledged to search-out and study techical aspects in legal writings in several multi-million-dollar patent litigations, and on the advice of my attorney [Patent Division] good friends, stay clear of the legalities. They did seem to appreciate minor suggestions. As Mark has pointed out several times, copyright [and patent] infringement situations can become d--- serious. Don
Thanx, Mark, Don
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2009-11-07 17:40
This was actually a pretty easy opinion to read, as copyright cases go. A lot of what makes copyright cases difficult to understand is that they deal with very fuzzy abstract concepts and deal with such philosophical matters as the nature of creativity and what is the difference between an idea and the expression of an idea.
The most enjoyable-to-read opinion I have ever read was by our own beloved (and recently deceased, I'm sorry to report) U.S. District Judge Jerry Buchmeyer of the Northern District of Texas. You can read it by clicking the link below (unfortunately, with the footnotes interspersed within the text--you just have to skip those):
http://www.pauljdonovan.us/legal/rimes.html
You have to read it aloud to get the full effect.
Judge Buchmeyer used to write the humor column at the back of the Texas Bar Journal--sort of a TV bloopers for lawyers. Lawyers would send Judge Buchmeyer funny excerpts from legal documents and deposition and trial transcripts, and he'd pick the best ones to publish. You can read some of them on the blog the Texas Bar set up to reprint them. Some of them are really funny. The link is below:
http://www.texasbar.com/saywhat/weblog/index.html
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: allencole
Date: 2009-11-07 18:22
I thought that this opinion did a pretty good job of stating the basic issues in this area. Lucky for us that the appeal was over jury instructions. At least we got to see what those instructions were, and have them explained. I can't imagine wading through this issue in pure legalese.
Allen Cole
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Berger
Date: 2009-11-07 21:40
Fine comments, mrn and Allen, et al. I'll copy this thread for our 2 "family" attorneys which we plan on seeing next weekend, football. y'know. Both are blessed with a sense of humor. so the Judge's humourous "collection" will be welcome, I'm sure. I will like them also. Don
Thanx, Mark, Don
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
