Jacobsen v. Katzer - Revision history

CCID-rob: Reverted edits by CCID-rob (talk) to last revision by Rob Williams

2015-12-15T01:11:23Z

Reverted edits by CCID-rob (talk) to last revision by Rob Williams

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:11, 15 December 2015
Line 140:		Line 140:
	}}		}}
	[[Category:USA]]		[[Category:USA]]

	~~Test.~~

CCID-rob: Template rebuild.

2015-12-15T01:07:16Z

Template rebuild.

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:07, 15 December 2015
Line 140:		Line 140:
	}}		}}
	[[Category:USA]]		[[Category:USA]]

			Test.

Rob Williams at 17:03, 21 January 2013

2013-01-21T17:03:19Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:03, 21 January 2013
Line 5:		Line 5:
	\|date=2010/02/22		\|date=2010/02/22
	\|description=Open source software case involving the Artistic License, involving alleged violation of the license that results in copyright infringement rather than contract violation		\|description=Open source software case involving the Artistic License, involving alleged violation of the license that results in copyright infringement rather than contract violation
	\|summary=NOTE: This summary needs to be updated for the Feb. 2010 decision by the Federal Circuit		\|summary=NOTE: This summary needs to be updated for the Feb. 2010 decision by the Federal Circuit. In an unpublished order, the Federal Circuit dismissed the case by agreement of the parties on February 22, 2010, without reaching the merits.

	'''CC DIMENSION:'''		'''CC DIMENSION:'''

CCID-diane peters at 12:33, 9 November 2012

2012-11-09T12:33:08Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:33, 9 November 2012
Line 4:		Line 4:
	\|court=United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit		\|court=United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
	\|date=2010/02/22		\|date=2010/02/22
	\|description=Open source software case ~~where~~ violation of the ~~open source~~ license ~~did create~~ copyright infringement		\|description=Open source software case involving the Artistic License, involving alleged violation of the license that results in copyright infringement rather than contract violation
	\|summary=NOTE: This summary needs to be updated for the Feb. 2010 decision by the Federal Circuit		\|summary=NOTE: This summary needs to be updated for the Feb. 2010 decision by the Federal Circuit

	'''CC ~~ASPECT~~:'''		'''CC DIMENSION:'''

	A model train hobbyist who had developed open source software ~~for controlling the movement of multiple trains on a track~~ brought suit against ~~a man~~ and company ~~that used this open source~~ software in ~~the creation of their own~~ competing proprietary software. The proprietary software did not contain ~~any of~~ the information required by the Artistic license under which the open source software was released.		A model train hobbyist who had developed open source software brought suit against an individual and company using the software in competing proprietary software. The proprietary software did not contain the attribution information required by the Artistic license under which the open source software was released.

	The District Court held that the Artistic license was a contract between the parties and remedies for breach of ~~this~~ contract could only sound in contract law, not as copyright infringement. This holding was appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Creative Commons participated in the submission of an amicus brief, asking the Court of Appeals to reverse the District Court.		The District Court held that the Artistic license was a contract between the parties, and remedies for breach of the contract could only sound in contract law, not as copyright infringement. This holding was appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Creative Commons participated in the submission of an amicus brief, asking the Court of Appeals to reverse the District Court.

	The Court of Appeals found that the ~~breach of a public~~ license could ~~sound in~~ copyright ~~infringement and~~ remanded the case to the ~~District Court~~.		The Court of Appeals found that the the terms in the Artistic license were conditions and not covenants, and that suit could be brought seeking remedies for violation of copyright rather than the more limited remedies available under contract. The appellate court remanded the case to the district court.

	'''BACKGROUND ON OTHER ISSUES:'''		'''BACKGROUND ON OTHER ISSUES:'''

	The case ~~had~~ other issues at the district court level, including a request for a preliminary injunction against the proprietary software makers to prevent them from accusing the plaintiff of patent infringement over patents the plaintiff claimed were invalid ~~for reason of fraud on the patent office~~.		The case involved other issues at the district court level, including a request for a preliminary injunction against the proprietary software makers to prevent them from accusing the plaintiff of patent infringement over patents the plaintiff claimed were invalid.

	'''PARTIES:'''		'''PARTIES:'''

Aurelia Schultz at 23:46, 1 December 2011

2011-12-01T23:46:00Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:46, 1 December 2011
Line 4:		Line 4:
	\|court=United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit		\|court=United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
	\|date=2010/02/22		\|date=2010/02/22
			\|description=Open source software case where violation of the open source license did create copyright infringement
	\|summary=NOTE: This summary needs to be updated for the Feb. 2010 decision by the Federal Circuit		\|summary=NOTE: This summary needs to be updated for the Feb. 2010 decision by the Federal Circuit

Line 138:		Line 139:
	\|related party=Plaintiff		\|related party=Plaintiff
	}}		}}

	[[Category:USA]]		[[Category:USA]]

Aurelia Schultz at 20:41, 28 November 2011

2011-11-28T20:41:28Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:41, 28 November 2011
Line 121:		Line 121:
	'''HOLDING:'''		'''HOLDING:'''

	Violations of open source and public licenses are ~~not~~ enforceable through copyright infringement claims, not just as breaches of contract.		Violations of open source and public licenses are enforceable through copyright infringement claims, not just as breaches of contract.
	}}		}}
	{{Case Law Upload		{{Case Law Upload

U.S. Curator: Category:USA

2011-09-12T18:48:40Z

Category:USA

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:48, 12 September 2011
Line 138:		Line 138:
	\|related party=Plaintiff		\|related party=Plaintiff
	}}		}}

			[[Category:USA]]

Ingmar: Formatting cleanup (i.e. made it readable)

2011-02-02T00:38:30Z

Formatting cleanup (i.e. made it readable)

Show changes

Akozak at 23:12, 13 October 2010

2010-10-13T23:12:50Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:12, 13 October 2010
Line 103:		Line 103:
	HOLDING:		HOLDING:
	Violations of open source and public licenses are not enforceable through copyright infringement claims, not just as breaches of contract.		Violations of open source and public licenses are not enforceable through copyright infringement claims, not just as breaches of contract.

	}}		}}
	{{Case Law Upload		{{Case Law Upload

Akozak: Undo revision 39736 by Akozak (Talk)

2010-08-11T17:54:58Z

Undo revision 39736 by Akozak (Talk)

@@ Line 4: / Line 4: @@
 |court=United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
 |date=2010/02/22
-|summary=
+|summary=NOTE: This summary needs to be updated for the Feb. 2010 decision by the Federal Circuit
 }}