far too pleased with themselvespic.twitter.com/Hu1MKSf9Ta
Vous pouvez ajouter des informations de localisation à vos Tweets, comme votre ville ou votre localisation précise, depuis le Web et via des applications tierces. Vous avez toujours la possibilité de supprimer l'historique de localisation de vos Tweets. En savoir plus
But "Engelhardt, for reasons unknown, is no longer an appellant."
(The reason is that Engelhardt and PETA have had a falling-out.)
Unfortunately the caselaw that the 9th Cir is pointing to with respect to next-friend is litigation around... GITMO detainees argh
THIS IS VERY UNFORTUNATE
Why haven't the judges just cited Cetacean v. Bush already
Oh there we go. Smith now discussing Cetacean
9th Circuit precedent that has the most amazing shade in the factual background section: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1459189.html …pic.twitter.com/HDHOKWoVOh
HOLY SHIT
Bea just
Bea just asked if the entire Copyright Act has to be interpreted for this case... and then asks about copyright descending to children
"Are there legitimate and illegitimate children in the world of Na-ru-to?"
"Are Na-ru-to’s offspring children as defined in the statute?"
I'm crying
THEN. THEN. PETA's attorney says that marriage in the Copyright Act is originally intended to refer to marriage between man and a woman
But of course marriage is different now omfg
Bea: Is there a similar holding by the Supreme Court that man and monkey are the same?
PETA: ... No.
I'm crying
Smith: I don’t think Congress ever had the intent to grant an animal rights under the Act
Bea: Do we look to the administrative guidance of the Compendium at all? Is it entitled to Chevron deference?
PETA says no. Bea asks if Skidmore deference—PETA says it must be treated as superficial guidance
Here comes Andrew Dhuey, legendary lawyer for the photographer David Slater
Dhuey: With regards to Cetacean, monkey see, monkey sue will not do in federal court.
Dhuey: Lexmark... I don't really understand how that affects this analysis?
Dhuey: I don't even see what the Ray Charles decision has to do with anything.
Dhuey: I'm sorry, your honor, I don't know why that came to the court 24 hours ago.
Dhuey now moving to fees issue, asking for attorney's fees.
Dhuey: What I'm hearing is an argument to overturn Cetacean. That's an en banc petition. This is a waste of judicial resources.
Bea: How would you like us to rule? [beat] I know you want us to affirm. But on what basis?
truly a shocking turn in a case about a monkey taking a selfie
Twitter est peut-être en surcapacité ou rencontre momentanément un incident. Réessayez ou rendez-vous sur la page Twitter Status pour plus d'informations.