Jacobsen v. Katzer

Last updated
Jacobsen v. Katzer
US DC NorCal.svg
Court United States District Court for the Northern District of California
Full case nameRobert Jacobsen v. Matthew Katzer and Kamind Associates, Inc.
Docket nos. 3:06-cv-01905
Citation(s)609 F. Supp. 2d 925
Case history
Subsequent action(s)535 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Jeffrey White
Keywords
copyright, patent invalidity, cybersquatting

Jacobsen v. Katzer was a lawsuit between Robert Jacobsen (plaintiff) and Matthew Katzer (defendant), filed March 13, 2006 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The case addressed claims on copyright, patent invalidity, cybersquatting, and Digital Millennium Copyright Act issues arising from Jacobsen under an open source license developing control software for model trains.

Contents

In ruling on summary judgment motions the Northern District Judge ruled that liability for an open source copyright violation nevertheless did not support Plaintiff's claim for damages. The Ruling rendered Plaintiff's claim pointless since the Plaintiff could not recover money damages. The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the trial judge holding an open source copyright claim was enforceable and awarded damages. The case then settled on February 16, 2010. [1] The case is noted for its contentiousness, with over 400 docket items (including motions, pleadings, as well as court orders) entered at the trial court, and two appeals to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. [2]

The Jacobsen case is noteworthy in United States copyright law because Courts clarified the enforceability of licensing agreements on both open-source software and proprietary software. The case established the rule of law that terms and conditions of the Artistic License 1.0 are "enforceable copyright conditions". [3]

Background

Jacobsen, a model railroad hobbyist and a programmer, started the Java Model Railroad Interface (JMRI) Project along with other software developers [4] in 2000, on the open-source incubation website SourceForge.net. [5] The goal of the project was to create interfaces that would allow model trains to be controlled on a layout of model train tracks. The software created by the JMRI community was distributed without charge on the Internet, subject to the terms of the Artistic License. [6] JMRI also sells custom software directly to modelers and to dealers for resale. [7] JMRI's sales have qualified JMRI for membership as a business in the Model Railroad Industry Association (MRIA). [8]

Defendant Katzer is the owner of KAMIND Associates Inc., an Oregon company doing business under the name KAM Industries. KAM produced and sold beginning in 1997 a commercial product for model trains, Train Tools, based on client-server software. [9] [10]

Katzer owns several patents that may apply to the model railroad industry, one of which he alleged the JMRI project may infringe. [6] Jacobsen, however, alleged that Katzer's software utilizes textual files from the JMRI project, in violation of copyright and the DMCA. Katzer subsequently countersued Jacobsen for $6 million for copyright infringement. [9]

In addition to the patent claims, there was also a dispute over websites. In February 2004, Katzer registered the web domain decoderpro.com; [11] however, DecoderPro is the trademarked name for a JMRI program. [12] Jacobsen succeeded in obtaining the return of the domain name.

Litigation history

Initial actions

Both Jacobsen and Katzer moved for summary judgment [13] [14] and the district court ruled on the parties' Motions in December 2009.

Summary judgment

The summary judgment deals with a series of submissions presented by Jacobsen (plaintiff) and Katzer (defendant). [15] [16] Responses to initial submissions were filed on November 13. [17] [18] [19] [20] Both plaintiff and defendant further replied to responses on November 19 and 20. [21] [22] [23] [24] Prior to oral arguments on December 4, Judge Jeffrey S. White issued a Notice of Tentative Ruling and Questions, tentatively affirming in part and denying in part Jacobsen's motion for summary judgment and tentatively denying Katzer's motion for summary judgment. [25]

On December 10, 2009, the judge denied Katzer's motion, concluding that Jacobsen could copyright the selection and ordering of the decoder definition files and could show monetary damages for copyright infringement. In the same ruling, he granted in part and denied in part Jacobsen's motion, finding that Katzer did register the decoderpro.com domain name in bad faith, that Katzer is liable for copyright infringement of the decoder definition files and that Katzer's counterclaim for copyright infringement is barred by the doctrine of laches (damaged argument), and ruled that Jacobsen had a license under an "Implied License" doctrine. The judge did not rule on damages for copyright infringement and determined that the questions of Katzer's knowledge or intent in removing copyright notices are triable issues. [26]

Settlement

The parties reached settlement on February 16, 2010, and the settlement paid on March 5, 2010. [27] [28]

The basic terms of the Mutual Settlement Agreement included the Parties agreeing:

  1. To a permanent injunction enjoining Katzer from "reproducing, by download or others, JMRI material, modifying JMRI material or distributing JMRI material".
  2. The Settlement forever barred each from pursuit of claims, known or unknown existing up to the settlement date, against the other. The Agreement pertained to "all claims based on or related to JMRI Material". This settlement term applied to JMRI, JMRI end-users, and JMRI developers to the date of settlement payment.
  3. To dismiss all pending matters, including Federal Circuit appeal, Jacobsen v Katzer et al., No. 2009-1221.
  4. Katzer/KAM agreed on a payment of $100,000 to Jacobsen.
  5. The settlement agreement terminated all Oral and Implied licenses between parties.
  6. Not to initiate legal proceedings against each other for 10 years, and to refer future disputes to arbitration. This applied only to Jacobsen and Katzer/KAM, not to JMRI, JMRI end users, or JMRI developers. [29] [30]
  7. That the Settlement Agreement does not pertain to newly issued Katzer IP, or any later JMRI software versions, appearing after the settlement date. [29]

As required by the Settlement Agreement, the defendant paid the plaintiff $100,000 on March 5, 2010.

Specific issues

KAM received a copyright infringement notification from Jacobsen on September 11, 2006, [31] and on the same day Jacobsen filed an amended complaint that included a claim for copyright infringement. [32] On the same day KAM removed allegedly infringing materials from KAM's website. [31] In Jacobsen's declaration, in support of a motion for a preliminary injunction, he specifically identified examples of alleged copyright infringement. [33]

In August 2007, the district court denied Jacobsen's request for declaratory judgment, holding that the "defendants' alleged violation of the conditions of the license may have constituted a breach of the nonexclusive license, but does not create liability for copyright infringement." [34] The judge stated that JMRI failed to allege claims that were the proximate cause of a breach of the Artistic License. [35]

In August 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated the district court's ruling, holding that the terms of the Artistic License are enforceable copyright conditions, and sent the case back to the district court. [36] The appeals court said, "Open source licensing has become a widely used method of creative collaboration that serves to advance the arts and sciences in a manner and at a pace that few could have imagined just a few decades ago," and cited as examples "the GNU/Linux operating system, the Perl programming language, the Apache web server programs, the Firefox web browser, and a collaborative web-based encyclopedia called Wikipedia." [3] Professor Lawrence Lessig called the ruling "a very important victory" that applies to all open source licenses, [37] and many other news organizations commented on the finding. [38] [39] [40]

In January 2009, the District Court again ruled on the preliminary motions, saying that it would hear Jacobsen's copyright claims but denying Jacobsen a preliminary injunction due to a lack of evidence showing any specific and actual harm. [35]

In June 2009, the Software Freedom Law Center filed an amicus brief before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) calling for injunctive relief for open source developers. In the brief, SFLC argues that a Free, Libre, and Open Source Software (FLOSS) developer whose license has been violated should be able to call upon the courts to prevent further infringing distributions. The brief outlines harm to developers, development communities, and project productivity related to open source license violations. [41]

Jacobsen based his case on an assertion of a copyright on behalf of a free software project that is otherwise extremely generous in granting permissions for downstream copying, modifying, and distributing its works. [42] Jacobsen explains that the basis of his copyright claims is that 102 files defining 291 decoders of the 500 decoders available on the market are at issue in this claim. JMRI developers chose the decoders they found most interesting and useful, and then structured the resulting definition files in a unique way, not based upon manufacturer or NMRA approaches, but reflecting the judgment of the JMRI developers as to their preferred arrangement, particularly choosing an arrangement appropriate for integrating these files with the rest of the JMRI software. [42]

Patent claims

Katzer asserted [43] that after he shipped model train software that used a client/server protocol in July 1997, [9] he filed a patent application within the United States one year statutory period, [44] [45] namely in June 1998, with the United States Patent and Trademark Office, [46] [47] consisting of 53 method claims for client/server control of model trains by computer software. [48]

On April 14, 2002, the JMRI project published [32] a new capability in their code, over 4 years after KAM presented their client/server architecture, [45] which allowed a computer to control the layout of a model railroad via a client/server protocol. On April 17, 2002, Katzer filed a continuation patent application, with a priority date back to 1998, with the patent office claiming those exact capabilities. [49] On March 11, 2003 the patent office granted the patent (the "'329 patent") claiming those exact capabilities. [50] Another model train software supplier, DigiToys Systems, produced software called WinLok, including functionality purported to be prior art. [51] This information was provided to the file history of the '329 patent, which is the parent of the pending continuation patent. Manual Patent Examining Procedures 707.05 states "In all continuation and continuation-in-part applications, the parent applications should be reviewed for pertinent prior art." [52] Accordingly, the references cited by the two model railroad hobbyists were before the patent office in the '329 patent. [50]

On March 8, 2005, Katzer sent patent infringement letters and bills to Jacobsen, claiming that the code in the JMRI project infringed his patent, [53] and that more than $200,000 was due for licensing fees of previously distributed versions of the project. [54] [55] Jacobsen filed for a declaratory judgment against Katzer. [56] In it, Jacobsen alleged that the June 1998 patent is invalid due to prior art, that Katzer deliberately failed to provide the patent office with the prior art, and that Katzer's patents had been granted by the patent office in error. [56]

On February 1, 2009, Katzer filed two disclaimers with the U.S. Patent Office, effectively making two of his patents unenforceable in their entirety. [57] The result of the disclaimer was to remove all patent issues from the case. [35] KAM stated that the disclaimer of the '329 patent was purely based upon economic considerations to avoid the cost of patent litigation. [58]

Cybersquatting claims

In July 2001, JMRI began calling one of its subprojects "DecoderPro". [59] In February 2004, Katzer purchased the domain decoderpro.com. After this was mentioned on a (non-JMRI) model railroad software mailing list, [60] Jerry Britton (a JMRI user/member) purchased and began using the domain name computerdispatcherpro.com, in apparent violation of Katzer's trademark on Computer Dispatcher. [49] [61] He also threatened to point KAM's computerdispatcherpro.com to a "good porn site". [62] Katzer sued Britton to force him to stop infringing on the computerdispatcherpro.com trademark, and prevent Britton from pointing the domain name to such a site, and Jacobsen asked Katzer to transfer the decoderpro.com domain to him. [11]

A settlement agreement between Britton and Katzer resulted in Britton transferring computerdispatcherpro.com to Katzer, and Katzer in turn transferring decoderpro.com to Britton. The agreement allowed Britton to point the domain to the JMRI decoderpro project site, but also prohibited Britton from transferring the domain name without Katzer's permission.

Jacobsen included a demand for return of decoderpro.com in his lawsuit against Katzer. He also filed an action with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) against fellow JMRI user Jerry Britton, asking that they settle the matter per the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDNDP); Britton did not respond to the action. [59] On July 26, 2007, WIPO found in favor of Jacobsen, ruling that Katzer's actions were found to be in "bad faith", since "there was essentially a purpose on the part of Katzer to disrupt the business of a competitor by interfering with Complainant's exercise of his trademark rights". [59] In the December 2009 Summary Judgement decision, the Federal Court concurred that Katzer had illegally cybersquatted on the decoderpro.com domain name.

In his second amended complaint against Katzer, Jacobsen included a section alleging that Katzer violated section 102 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act by removing or altered copyright management information. [6]

In response, Katzer filed a motion to dismiss the DMCA claims, stating that "information [that] does not encrypt or control access ... but ... 'functions to inform people who make copyright decisions" did not fall under the DMCA. [63] However, in December 2009, the court ruled that Katzer's removal of the JMRI copyright information was a removal of copyright management information under the DMCA, leaving the question of intent under the DMCA, and damages under the DMCA to be proved at trial. [26]

Related Research Articles

The Artistic License is an open-source license used for certain free and open-source software packages, most notably the standard implementation of the Perl programming language and most CPAN modules, which are dual-licensed under the Artistic License and the GNU General Public License (GPL).

Grokster Ltd. was a privately owned software company based in Nevis, West Indies that created the Grokster peer-to-peer file-sharing client in 2001 that used the FastTrack protocol. Grokster Ltd. was rendered extinct in late 2005 by the United States Supreme Court's decision in MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. The court ruled against Grokster's peer-to-peer file sharing program for computers running the Microsoft Windows operating system, effectively forcing the company to cease operations.

Copyright misuse is an equitable defence to copyright infringement in the United States based upon the doctrine of unclean hands. The misuse doctrine provides that the copyright holder engaged in abusive or improper conduct in exploiting or enforcing the copyright will be precluded from enforcing his rights against the infringer. Copyright misuse is often comparable to and draws from the older and more established doctrine of patent misuse, which bars a patentee from obtaining relief for infringement when he extends his patent rights beyond the limited monopoly conferred by the law.

In a series of legal disputes between SCO Group and Linux vendors and users, SCO alleged that its license agreements with IBM meant that source code IBM wrote and donated to be incorporated into Linux was added in violation of SCO's contractual rights. Members of the Linux community disagreed with SCO's claims; IBM, Novell, and Red Hat filed claims against SCO.

<i>Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Skylink Technologies, Inc.</i> American legal case concerning the DMCA

The Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Skylink Technologies, Inc., 381 F.3d 1178 is a legal case heard by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concerning the anti-trafficking provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(2), in the context of two competing universal garage door opener companies. It discusses the statutory structure and legislative history of the DMCA to help clarify the intent of the anti-circumvention provisions and decide who holds the burden of proof. It expresses that the statute creates a cause of action for liability and does not create a property right, and holds that as Chamberlain had alleged that Skylink was in violation of the anti-trafficking provision, it had the burden to prove and failed to show that access was unauthorized and its rights were infringed under the Copyright Act. As Chamberlain incorrectly argued that Skylink had the burden of proof and failed to prove their claim, the court upheld summary judgment in favor of Skylink.

The multinational technology corporation Apple Inc. has been a participant in various legal proceedings and claims since it began operation and, like its competitors and peers, engages in litigation in its normal course of business for a variety of reasons. In particular, Apple is known for and promotes itself as actively and aggressively enforcing its intellectual property interests. From the 1980s to the present, Apple has been plaintiff or defendant in civil actions in the United States and other countries. Some of these actions have determined significant case law for the information technology industry and many have captured the attention of the public and media. Apple's litigation generally involves intellectual property disputes, but the company has also been a party in lawsuits that include antitrust claims, consumer actions, commercial unfair trade practice suits, defamation claims, and corporate espionage, among other matters.

Java Model Railroad Interface (JMRI) is an open source program for model railroad hobbyists, released under GNU General Public License v2. It allows users to control LED lights, horn, or switch the railway of hobbyist open-source or commercials closed-sourced trains.

Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., is an American legal case involving the computer printer company Lexmark, which had designed an authentication system using a microcontroller so that only authorized toner cartridges could be used. The resulting litigation has resulted in significant decisions affecting United States intellectual property and trademark law.

Los Angeles Times v. Free Republic, 56 U.S.P.Q.2d 1862, is a United States district court copyright law case. Several newspapers sued the Internet forum Free Republic for allowing its users to repost the full text of copyrighted newspaper articles, asserting that this constituted copyright infringement. Free Republic claimed that they were not liable under the doctrine of fair use and the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech. The federal courts ruled in favor of the newspapers.

Arts and media industry trade groups, such as the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) and Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), strongly oppose and attempt to prevent copyright infringement through file sharing. The organizations particularly target the distribution of files via the Internet using peer-to-peer software. Efforts by trade groups to curb such infringement have been unsuccessful with chronic, widespread and rampant infringement continuing largely unabated.

Capitol Records, Inc. v. Thomas-Rasset was the first file-sharing copyright infringement lawsuit in the United States brought by major record labels to be tried before a jury. The defendant, Jammie Thomas-Rasset, was found liable to the plaintiff record company for making 24 songs available to the public for free on the Kazaa file sharing service and ordered to pay $220,000.

Field v. Google, Inc., 412 F.Supp. 2d 1106 is a case where Google Inc. successfully defended a lawsuit for copyright infringement. Field argued that Google infringed his exclusive right to reproduce his copyrighted works when it "cached" his website and made a copy of it available on its search engine. Google raised multiple defenses: fair use, implied license, estoppel, and Digital Millennium Copyright Act safe harbor protection. The court granted Google's motion for summary judgment and denied Field's motion for summary judgment.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Digital Millennium Copyright Act</span> United States copyright law

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is a 1998 United States copyright law that implements two 1996 treaties of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). It criminalizes production and dissemination of technology, devices, or services intended to circumvent measures that control access to copyrighted works. It also criminalizes the act of circumventing an access control, whether or not there is actual infringement of copyright itself. In addition, the DMCA heightens the penalties for copyright infringement on the Internet. Passed on October 12, 1998, by a unanimous vote in the United States Senate and signed into law by President Bill Clinton on October 28, 1998, the DMCA amended Title 17 of the United States Code to extend the reach of copyright, while limiting the liability of the providers of online services for copyright infringement by their users.

<i>Facebook, Inc. v. Power Ventures, Inc.</i> Lawsuit brought by Facebook in the United States

Facebook, Inc. v. Power Ventures, Inc. is a lawsuit brought by Facebook in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging that Power Ventures Inc., a third-party platform, collected user information from Facebook and displayed it on their own website. Facebook claimed violations of the CAN-SPAM Act, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act ("CFAA"), and the California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act. According to Facebook, Power Ventures Inc. made copies of Facebook's website during the process of extracting user information. Facebook argued that this process causes both direct and indirect copyright infringement. In addition, Facebook alleged this process constitutes a violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA"). Finally, Facebook also asserted claims of both state and federal trademark infringement, as well as a claim under California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL").

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hotfile</span> File hosting website

Hotfile was a one-click file hosting website founded by Hotfile Corp in 2006 in Panama City, Panama. On December 4, 2013, Hotfile ceased all operations, the same day as signing a $4 million settlement with the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA); the settlement had previously been misreported as $80 million.

<i>Viacom International Inc. v. YouTube, Inc.</i> U.S. District Court case

Viacom International, Inc. v. YouTube, Inc., 676 F.3d 19, was a United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit decision regarding liability for copyright infringement committed by the users of an online video hosting platform.

<i>Arista Records LLC v. Lime Group LLC</i> 2010 United States district court case

Arista Records LLC v. Lime Group LLC, 715 F. Supp. 2d 481, is a United States district court case in which the Southern District of New York held that Lime Group LLC, the defendant, induced copyright infringement with its peer-to-peer file sharing software, LimeWire. The court issued a permanent injunction to shut it down. The lawsuit is a part of a larger campaign against piracy by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA).

Fujitsu Ltd. v. Netgear Inc., 620 F.3d 1321, was a patent infringement case centered on three patents claimed to be required for full compliance of the IEEE 802.11 (WiFi) standard and the WiFi Alliance Wireless Multimedia Extensions (WMM) Specification. US patents 4,975,952, 6,018,642, and 6,469,993 were owned by Philips Electronics, Fujitsu, and LG Electronics respectively, and placed in the Via Licensing pool. The Via Licensing pool claimed to hold all patents required for a complete WiFi/WMM implementation. Netgear did not enter an agreement with Via Licensing but produced a series of products that conform to the WiFi standard and WMM Specification. Philips Electronics, Fujitsu, and LG Electronics sued Netgear for patent infringement claiming a complete implementation of the WiFi standard implied violating patents held by Via Licensing pool. When tried in United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, the court granted summary judgment of non-infringement by Netgear for all three patents thus plaintiffs appealed. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit confirmed non-infringement for two of the three patent and found infringement of the third patent in four of Netgear's products.

<i>Cambridge University Press v. Patton</i>

Cambridge University Press et al. v. Patton et al., 1:2008cv01425, was a case in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia in which three publishers, Cambridge University Press, SAGE Publications, and Oxford University Press, initially filed suit in 2008 against Georgia State University for copyright infringement.

Open source license litigation involves lawsuits surrounding open-source licensed software. Many of the legal rights of open source software licensors enforceable against users violating licensing agreements are untested by the U.S. legal system. Free and open source software (FOSS) is distributed under a variety of free-software licenses, which are unique among other software licenses. Legal action against open source licenses involves questions about their validity and enforceability.

References

  1. ↑ "Motion Regarding Settlement" (PDF). February 18, 2010.
  2. ↑ "The Complete Docket".
  3. 1 2 Jacobsen v. Katzer, 535F.3d1373 ( Fed. Cir. 2008).
  4. ↑ JMRI.org
  5. ↑ "SourceForge.net: JMRI Model Railroad Interface" . Retrieved 2008-08-23.
  6. 1 2 3 "Second Amended Complaint for Declaratory Judgment, Violations of Copyright and Federal Trademark Laws, and State Law Breach of Contract against all defendants" (PDF). Retrieved 2009-10-03.
  7. ↑ Trainpriority.com Archived July 17, 2011, at the Wayback Machine
  8. ↑ "MRIA Reporter Newsletter" (PDF). Trainpriority.com. May 2005. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2011-07-17. Retrieved 2010-05-17. May 2005 Reporter Newsletter, JMRI admitted as a new business member
  9. 1 2 3 "Katzer's answer to Jacobsen's Second Amended Complaint and counterclaim against Robert Jacobsen, Feb 2009" (PDF). Retrieved 2009-10-22.
  10. ↑ "Jacobsen/JMRI KAM software timeline" (PDF). Trainpriority.com. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2011-07-17. Retrieved 2010-03-06.
  11. 1 2 "Letter to Matt Katzer regarding decoderpro.com, November 2004" (PDF). Retrieved 2009-10-03.
  12. ↑ "Jacobsen's trademark on DecoderPro, as listed at the website of the United States Patent and Trademark Office" . Retrieved 2009-11-19.
  13. ↑ "Jacobsen's Motion for Summary Judgment, October, 2009" (PDF). Retrieved 2009-10-31.
  14. ↑ "Katzer's Motion for Summary Judgment, October, 2009" (PDF). Retrieved 2009-10-31.
  15. ↑ "Jacobsen's Posted Motion for Summary Judgment" (PDF). Retrieved 2009-10-31.
  16. ↑ "KAMIND's and Katzer's Posted Motion for Summary Judgment" (PDF). Retrieved 2009-10-31.
  17. ↑ "Jacobsen's Posted Response to Katzer's Summary Judgment Submission" (PDF). Retrieved 2009-11-14.
  18. ↑ "Jacobsen's attorneys supporting documentation for Jacobsen's response to Katzer's Motion for Summary Judgment" (PDF). Retrieved 2009-11-14.
  19. ↑ "Katzer's Posted Response to Jacobsen's Summary Judgment Submission" (PDF). Retrieved 2009-11-14.
  20. ↑ "Katzer's attorneys supporting documentation for Katzer's response to Jacobsen's Motion for Summary Judgment" (PDF).
  21. ↑ "Plaintiff's Reply Memorandum in support of Motion for Summary Judgement" (PDF). Retrieved 2009-11-27.
  22. ↑ "Declaration of Robert Jacobsen" (PDF). Retrieved 2009-11-27.
  23. ↑ "Declaration of Victoria K. Hall" (PDF). Retrieved 2009-11-27.
  24. ↑ "Defendant's Matthew Katzer and KAMIND Associates, Inc's reply in support of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgement" (PDF). Retrieved 2009-11-27.
  25. ↑ "Judge White's Notice of Tentative Ruling and Questions RE Motions for Summary Judgement" (PDF). Retrieved 2009-12-03.
  26. 1 2 "Judge White's Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgement and Denying Defendants Motion for Partial Summary Judgement" (PDF). Retrieved 2009-12-12.
  27. ↑ "Order of Dismissal, Federal District Court Doc.#404" (PDF). March 5, 2010. Archived from the original (PDF) on July 17, 2011. Retrieved March 3, 2010.
  28. ↑ "Key dates". Trainpriority.com. Archived from the original on 2011-07-17. Retrieved 2010-03-06.
  29. 1 2 "Settlement Agreement Federal District Court Doc.#402-1" (PDF). February 16, 2010. Archived from the original (PDF) on July 17, 2011. Retrieved March 3, 2010.
  30. ↑ "Injunction, Federal District Court Doc.#403" (PDF). February 22, 2010. Retrieved 2010-03-03.[ dead link ]
  31. 1 2 Sourceforge.net
  32. 1 2 JMRI.org
  33. ↑ JMRI.org
  34. ↑ "District Court ruling, August 2007" (PDF). Retrieved 2009-10-03.
  35. 1 2 3 Jacobsen v. Katzer, 609F. Supp. 2d925 ( N.D. Cal. 2009).
  36. ↑ "Amicus Brief Urging Reversal" (PDF). Retrieved 2009-10-03.
  37. ↑ "Lessig 2.0: "huge and important news: free licenses upheld," August, 2008" . Retrieved 2009-10-03.
  38. ↑ "Open Source Code on Firmer Ground After Jacobsen Ruling, August 14, 2008" . Retrieved 2009-10-03.
  39. ↑ "Federal Circuit Says Open Source License Conditions are Enforceable as Copyright Condition, August 13, 2008". 13 August 2008. Retrieved 2009-10-03.
  40. ↑ Markoff, John (2008-08-14). "New York Times: Federal Circuit Says Open Source License Conditions are Enforceable as Copyright Condition, August 13, 2008". The New York Times. Retrieved 2009-10-03.
  41. ↑ "SFLC Files Amicus Brief in Jacobsen v. Katzer" . Retrieved 2009-10-03.
  42. 1 2 Cyberlawcases.com Archived February 17, 2010, at the Wayback Machine
  43. ↑ "Answer- Shows 1997 date, Page 6" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2011-07-17. Retrieved 2010-03-22.
  44. ↑ USPTO.gov Archived March 24, 2010, at the Wayback Machine
  45. 1 2 Trainpriority.com Archived July 17, 2011, at the Wayback Machine
  46. ↑ "United States patent number 6,065,406" . Retrieved 2009-10-03.
  47. ↑ Google.com
  48. ↑ Rosenlaw.com
  49. 1 2 Sourceforge.net
  50. 1 2 "United States patent number 6,530,329" . Retrieved 2009-10-03.
  51. ↑ http://jmri.sourceforge.net/k/docket/52.pdf [ bare URL PDF ]
  52. ↑ "MPEP".
  53. ↑ "JMRI Infringement" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2011-07-17. Retrieved 2010-03-06.
  54. ↑ "Bill to Jacobsen dated August 18, 2005" (PDF). Retrieved 2008-10-03.
  55. ↑ "Bill to Jacobsen dated October 15, 2005" (PDF). Retrieved 2009-10-03.
  56. 1 2 Sourceforge.net
  57. ↑ "Disclaimer of patent 6,530,329" (PDF). Retrieved 2009-10-03.
  58. ↑ JMRI.org
  59. 1 2 3 "WIPO finding on Robert G. Jacobsen v. Jerry R. Britton, July, 2007" . Retrieved 2009-10-03.
  60. ↑ Yahoo! Groups
  61. ↑ "Barbara W. Dawson and Matthew A. Katzer v. Jeremy Britton, November, 2004" (PDF). Retrieved 2009-10-03.
  62. ↑ "Jerry Britton (JMRI user) threatens to point Katzer Domain to a porn site on Oct 26, 2004" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on July 17, 2011. Retrieved March 28, 2010.
  63. ↑ "Katzer's third motion to dismiss "for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted," February, 2008" (PDF). Retrieved 2009-10-03.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.