Jacobsen v. Katzer
http://dbpedia.org/resource/Jacobsen_v._Katzer an entity of type: WikicatUnitedStatesLawsuits
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.
rdf:langString
rdf:langString
Jacobsen v. Katzer
rdf:langString
Jacobsen v. Katzer
xsd:integer
18849825
xsd:integer
1080704603
<second>
25920.0
xsd:integer
3
<second>
172800.0
rdf:langString
Robert Jacobsen v. Matthew Katzer and Kamind Associates, Inc.
xsd:integer
150
rdf:langString
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. 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. 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. 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".
xsd:nonNegativeInteger
31304