@taradinoc @Dravorek That is not at all what was held in Lexmark.
-
-
Replying to @cmuratori
@cmuratori@Dravorek Wikipedia's discussion of the appellate running says it is. Got a better link?1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @taradinoc
@taradinoc@Dravorek Wikipedia, as you might expect, is a pretty bad place to read about legal opinions :)1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori
@taradinoc@Dravorek The Supreme Court never heard any of these arguments, they granted cert only on the false advertising portion.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori
@taradinoc@Dravorek This was case about _standing_, not about anything else.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori
@taradinoc@Dravorek The Supreme Court verdict was here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-873_3dq3.pdf …1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori
@taradinoc@Dravorek The district court were the only ones who considered any aspect of the copyright part.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori
@taradinoc@Dravorek You can read their ruling here: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-6th-circuit/1610931.html …1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori
@taradinoc@Dravorek But basically the long and short of it is a) the Supreme Court has never considered the copyright part, and...1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori
@taradinoc@Dravorek ... b) the district court was actually looking at a lot of things that had nothing to do with API copyright,2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
@taradinoc @Dravorek and made no such clear ruling as what you stated (and presumably Wikipedia stated, if that's where you got that).
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.