text:
JMRI Defense: Our Story So Far
This page describes the entire history, starting from the beginning and going to the most recent events. It's a long story.If you want just the most recent events, they're also available on a shorter page.
Other information and arrangements are available from the left-side menu.
The navigation bar to the left has links to more information, or you can go back to the main page for an overview.
If you'd like to get email when we update these pages, please subscribe to the
mailing list at SourceForge.net.
This will carry short announcements occasionally as news happens.
There won't be a lot of traffic.
It's not a list for discussion and strategizing; for various reasons,
we can't do that on a public list.
Some of his tactics and justifications
strike right at the heart of the Open Source community.
We are one of the first projects to have to defend against bogus
patent claims and protect its copyrighted software and license
against such a concerted attack.
We certainly won't be the last.
Here's our story.
Start: Introduction
We are in the midst of a years-long effort to
protect the JMRI open-source project from
attack by someone who wants to steal our
work and prevent anybody from using our software.
is open-source software for model-railroaders. There's a
separate page
that describes the history of the project, and gives further links.
are built on JMRI, and are popular tools for programming locomotives
and operating layouts.
DecoderPro has been around for several years.
Matt Katzer owns KAM Industries, a company that tries to sell model railroad software. He's never contributed anything to the JMRI effort. But that hasn't stopped him from taking JMRI intellectual property.
Matt Katzer and his company KAMIND Associates, Inc. are attacking the rights of open source groups to enforce their copyrights and licenses. If they prevail, the rights of open source groups like JMRI will be significantly weakened, if not lost. We are breaking ground for open source groups in federal court and establishing legal rights for open source groups and their members. We need your help and donations to succeed in this legal fight.
In the next sections we discuss Katzer's cybersquatting, enforcement of bogus patents, copyright infringement and our fight in federal court.
Cybersquatting and the decoderpro.com domain name
In October of 2004, we noticed that Katzer had registered decoderpro.com as a domain name in February of 2004. When asked about it, Katzer said he was considering whether he wouldbe able to take the open source code and turn it into a licensed product so it could be distributed. Katzer also said he had the name because
If I decide that to released (sic) a licensed version of an open source development effort, what better place to have it then the name of the development effort?
We registered the DecoderPro® name as a federal trademark. This was expensive, so we sought donations through our JMRI web site on SourceForge. Bob Jacobsen, one of the JMRI developers and the person who maintains the JMRI web site, wrote to Matt Katzer asking for the return of the domain name, but never received a reply. Jerry Britton, a JMRI user, offered to trade another domain name for it. Instead, Matt Katzer sued him. That suit was eventually settled by having them swap domains, so that Jerry ended up with decoderpro.com -- and a lot of restrictions that Katzer imposed on him. For one, Jerry couldn't transfer decoderpro.com to anyone else, including JMRI. If he did, Jerry would have to pay $20,000 plus attorney's fees. (Note that Katzer did not impose similar transfer restrictions on himself for the domain name he got out of the deal.) Katzer also demanded that Jerry not talk about this agreement, on pain of a $20,000 penalty. We learned of this settlement from public records in the Oregon federal court, because Katzer's attorney Kevin Russell didn't file the agreement under seal as he was supposed to.
Bogus Patents
Beginning in 1998, Katzer applied for multiple patents on technology developed by other people. The US Patent Office granted them, in part because Katzer failed to tell the patent examiner what he knew about existing products and inventors.Katzer filed his first patent application on June 24, 1998. Although well aware of other's work, Katzer intentionally did not tell the Patent Office that the "invention" he was claiming had already been done by, among others,
- Juergen Freiwald's TrainController (Railroad&Co)
- John Kabat's LocoNet VxD
- Hans-Rudi Tanner's WinLok (although he did mention DigiToys, Hans-Rudi's company, Katzer didn't tell the examiner the name of WinLok or produce it for the examiner)
- Strad Bushby's model railroad, using Digitrax LocoNet to connect multiple computers
After the first patents were granted, Katzer filed a lawsuit against Hans-Rudi Tanner and another suit against Juergen Freiwald for patent infringement, and sent cease and desist letters to many of their of dealers. Juergen and Hans-Rudi both wrote Katzer in October 2002, explaining that lots of "prior art" existed to demonstrate that Katzer's patent was invalid, and that since Katzer knew about those pre-existing programs, he'd violated his duty to tell the patent examiner the information when he filed his patent application. Shortly thereafter, Katzer dropped the suits.
Katzer didn't shy away from using his patents to push hobbyists around. On September 8, 2004, Glenn Butcher wrote to the loconet_info mailing list:
Mr Kratzer(sic) and I have had a short exchange of emails on the topic of his patents. As a result, I have chosen to remove my loconetd and railroadd servers and client apps from my website. Mr Kratzer(sic) forwarded a FAQ on his technology licensing that contained a list of questions to aid in determining whether others' efforts could be infringing on his patents; some are specific but in my opinion others appear to be general enough to cover most of the software development activity discussed on this list. As I don't have the resources to consult a patent attorney in this matter, I've taken a conservative approach to protecting myself.
I find it disappointing to have to do this, especially to protect the rights to exclusively use what, in my opinion, appear to be simple extensions of what I used to teach in undergraduate computer science. However, I don't think it's worth fighting when that time could be spent building my layout, money could be spent on the brass D&RGW K-37 I so dearly covet...
This also resulted in a large amount of criticism of Katzer's actions, with a number of people announcing that they would no longer consider his products. (As we have stated before, we are dead set against any harassment or boycotting actions, and believe that model railroaders should be able to buy whatever products they want.)
Meanwhile, in March and April 2002, JMRI developers were working on "client/server" capabilities for LocoNet. Client/server communications for model or prototype railroads are not novel; there are lots of examples available, dating back for years. The client/server capability was a straightforward implementation using Sun Microsystem's Java RMI software tools (the similarity to the JMRI acronym is coincidental, though confusing). Using these, a remote computer running a JMRI product (e.g. DecoderPro, PanelPro, etc) could operate the layout by connecting to a local server computer that was directly connected to the layout. People discussed this update in March 2002 on a public email list while it was being developed. On April 14, 2002, the client/server update was announced as part of a JMRI test release. As always, the source code was available to the public on the web.
Three days later, on April 17, 2002, Katzer fired off a patent application intended to cover this, and claimed a filing date of June 1998. He could do this -- US patent law allows for "continuation applications". If you have a pending application, you can file another one that "gains the benefit" of the earlier application. From a legal perspective, Katzer could make his applications look as if he'd invented the JMRI capability in 1998!
By misleading the Patent Office, Katzer was able to obtain a patent on this capability by the start of 2003. Specifically, he has a patent on any system that uses
1. A method of operating a digitally controlled model railroad comprising the steps of:
(a) transmitting a first command from a first program to an interface;
(b) transmitting a second command from a second program to said interface; and
(c) sending third and fourth commands from said interface representative of said first and second commands, respectively, to a digital command station.
(Claim 1 of US patent 6,530,329, aka "the '329 patent")
Enforcing Patents Against JMRI and Bob Jacobsen
After the '329 patent issued, Katzer and Russell sent letters that demanded $19, and later $29 in royalties per downloaded copy of JMRI. We believe that the patent was invalid because of prior art, and if they had provided the prior art in their possession to the patent examiner in the first place, the patent would never have been granted. It didn't stop them. Bob Jacobsen received bills for in excess of $200,000 on a roughly monthly basis from August 2005 to January 2006. (There's a separate correspondence page that has the all the letters)When that harassment wasn't enough to stop JMRI, Katzer and Russell contacted Bob's employer in an attempt to intimidate him. Bob is a physics professor who works part time for the University of California at Berkeley, and part time at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBL, run by the US Department of Energy). LBL is run by a Nobel-prize-winning physicist, and has thousands of scientists doing basic and applied forefront research. Russell sent a Freedom of Information Act request to LBL, asserting that the Laboratory "had duties for the JMRI project", and that KAM's patents were "being infringed by the JMRI project sponsored by the LAB". The request went on to ask for Bob's private emails, along with a number of other types of information designed to embarrass Bob in front of his employer.
The Department of Energy eventually decided that the request was without merit, but only after it had caused a lot of trouble.
In the meantime,
Russell continued to send
invoices for more than $200,000.
March 13, 2006: Jacobsen asks for a Declaratory Judgment
In March 2006, we couldn't allow this to go on, and filed a
"Declaratory Judgment"
in Federal Court to get a legal determination
on our rights.
The complaint lists acts of unfair competition,
libel, patent fraud and misrepresentation, etc, and
asks that the Court issue injunctions to prevent
Russell and Katzer from continuing them.
July 12, 2006: Anti-SLAPP motions
In mid-May 2006, Katzer and Russell filed several motions
to dismiss parts of the complaint. In particular,
Katzer filed a motion to
dismiss the libel claims
under the California anti-SLAPP law, and Russell
filed motions to
dismiss claims
under the anti-SLAPP law
for the procedural reasons
of lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.
The California anti-SLAPP law is intended to protect people who make comments about issues of public interest, or as part of official government proceedings. It was not originally intended to protect corporate wrong-doers, though it's being used that way more and more. It's particularly dangerous for JMRI, because it automatically requires that, if a suit is struck down due to the anti-SLAPP law, the defendants (in this case Matt Katzer, KAM and/or Kevin Russell) get their legal costs reimbursed by the plaintiff (Bob Jacobsen).
In their motions and associated declarations, they make some pretty unbelievable claims. For example, Katzer in his declaration refers to the Department of Energy's "apparent sponsorship of the java model railroad interface (sic) (JMRI) project". He then argues that his "reasonable" belief was based on:
- Two papers (which he misrepresents) where the National Science Foundation (not the Department of Energy or LBL) has provided money for a college to use model trains in teaching real-time programming and communications.
- "Notice of the formation of JMRI on DOE or other official letterhead" that he said he "believed" he saw on the JMRIusers discussion group in January or February 2004. Setting aside that JMRI had existed for years before the date he here claimed it was "formed", both Yahoo and Internet Archive show no indication of such "notice" ever existed. The statement is a complete fabrication.
- Bob Jacobsen's emails and posting which Katzer misrepresented as "documents promoting JMRI", "including a request for funding".
"It was not the purpose of the FOIA request to embarrass Jacobsen with his employer, as alleged in the complaint. At the time of sending the FOIA request, I had no knowledge of Jacobsen's employment status, either with the DOE or any other employer. At the time of sending the FOIA request, I assumed that Jacobsen worked for the University of California at Berkeley based on a representation Jacobsen made to a model train internet newsgroup in 2001."Note that the third sentence contradicts the second in that paragraph. It's simply unbelievable that Katzer didn't think Bob worked for LBL, given that Katzer was already aware of Bob's use of an LBL email address. They had even had several direct email exchanges in the past.
Still, given the structure of the California anti-SLAPP law
and that Katzer is willing to lie to the court,
it's going to take a very large amount of effort to defeat these motions.
We'll be submitting replies, which will be available from
documents page
once they're in.
August 13, 2006: Court Hearing
On August 11, 2006, the Court held a hearing to decide
the motions.
The day before, the Court had issued a
tentative ruling
that indicated the questions that were to be addressed in the
hearing, and said that the Court was tentatively planning
to grant all the motions (basically giving Katzer, KAM
and Russell all that they had requested).
The hearing lasted about 90 minutes, during which the Judge asked thoughtful questions of both sides. Clearly, he was trying to understand the issues raised in the large legal briefs. In the end, however, he adopted the tentative order, and issued a "minute order" to that effect.
We don't have the Court's full reasoning, but we believe that - because of California's anti-SLAPP procedure - the Court decided it could not hear evidence that would contradict Katzer's false statements. As a result, Katzer prevailed. And as a result, California's anti-SLAPP law requires that the defendants (Katzer and Russell) be reimbursed for their legal fees. The next step is the Court ruling on Katzer and Russell's attorneys fee requests. We have filed objections with the Court, and demand more detail of the bills than the sketchy outlines that have been provided so far. But if the requests are found to be reasonable, the Court will then order them paid.
The important thing is that the main parts of the case are still
intact. However, certain claims in
the original complaint have been removed. The
Court will no longer consider libel or anti-trust
charges against Katzer, nor any charges against
DecoderPro is able to easily configure more than 300
types of devices because hobbyists have contributed more
than 100
decoder definition files.
These definitions, produced by lots of separate
are what makes the program so useful,
since they express a model railroader's view of how best to configure
a particular device. DecoderPro first started using this approach
in September of 2001.
In 2004, Matt Katzer started talking about "his" Decoder Commander
product. It was finally released in 2005; on his web site,
Katzer used to claim:
September 10, 2006: Infringing Copyrighted Material
In June 2006, we learned that Katzer took JMRI copyrighted code,
stripped out authors' names and JMRI copyright notices,
converted it to his own use and then distributed it as his own.
In June 2005 at the [NMRA] Cincinnati convention we Introduced Decoder Commander.
The first XML based distributed programmer.(sic)
(Untrue, as JMRI predated this by years)
Imagine our surprise when we discovered
that he had copied the JMRI decoder definitions
for distribution on his CDs and even tried to
claim them as his own work, saying
in the product manual
All decoders have unique characteristics.
KAM has created a set of Decoder Templates
that has these characteristics in an XML configuration file.
separate page
discusses some of the evidence for the copying in detail, but we can
summarize some key points:
- He distributed a copy of each of the JMRI files. For example, the content of the JMRI QSI_Electric.xml file was included on the Decoder Commander CD in a file called QSI_Electric.tpl.xml; the names are identical except for adding the ".tpl" modifier. All of the files on the KAM version 304 CD were based on JMRI files in this way; no extra files were present on the KAM version 304 CD.
- Original JMRI definition files contain the version, the date modified, the author's name, and a copyright notice. These have free-form content, so there are many formats. The version strings and the modification date strings in the KAM files are EXACTLY the same as those in the original JMRI files they were copied from. The author's name, however, was not copied into the KAM file, nor was the JMRI copyright information.
- Many details of the content of the original JMRI files were copied exactly: Misspellings, odd capitalizations, technical errors, even the order in which options are described were all copied over exactly.
September 11, 2006: Amended Complaint
On September 11, 2006, we filed an "Amended Complaint" with the Court. This includes descriptions of Katzer's and KAM's copyright and trademark violations (discussed previously) and asks the Court for relief.September 27, 2006: Another Round of Motions from Katzer
September 27, 2006: Katzer's lawyer has filed another motion to dismiss parts of the amended complaint.In it, he doesn't argue that Katzer didn't copy the JMRI software in violation of the copyright terms, probably because even HE can't stretch the truth that far. Instead, he argues that copyright doesn't protect free and open source (FOSS) software! You can read the entire argument in the motion filed with the court, in particular the section named "Plaintiff has waived his ability to sue under the Copyright Act" starting on page 13. Basically, it says that since JMRI makes the software available on the web, free of charge (although not free of restriction), when someone like Katzer takes it and uses it in violation of those restrictions, we can sue him in contract law only, if at all. The shocking part of Katzer's argument is that he says we have no rights under either copyright or contract to enforce.
This argument strikes right at the heart of much of FOSS licensing.
It's already hard enough for the FOSS community to enforce its legal rights.
If we lose the possibility of protecting the integrity of our work via copyrights,
we'll be in a terrible situation.
We hope you'll help us in this fight.
Click here to
donate (anonymously if you prefer).
October 20, 2006: Written Ruling on Initial Motions
On October 20th, 2006, the Court issued its
written order
on the initial motions.
The decision was along the lines of the
minute order
issued right after the hearing
discussed previously.
The Court did find that the full amount of the legal
fees demanded by Jerger and Zeff was "excessive" and "unreasonable",
so it reduced the amounts
to $14,486.68 and $16,976.25 respectively.
October 25, 2006: Request for Preliminary Injunction Against Copyright Infringement
October 25, 2006:
Given the strength of the evidence that Katzer copied from
JMRI, and given that it appears that he's going to continue,
we asked the court for a preliminary injunction. The
was accompanied by
two declarations and several exhibits.
This was scheduled for a hearing on January 19, 2007.
October 30, 2006: Request for Reconsideration of Motions Denied
On October 30, 2006, we filed a
"Motion for Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration, Motion for Stay, and Request for Clarification".
This was a preliminary step required before seeking reconsideration of the
written order of October 20th, 2006.
It lays out the reasons why we think that reconsideration is justified.
The Court
denied the request
that same day.
As a result,
Bob paid the
legal fees demanded by Jerger and Zeff.
David Zeff wasn't content
to actually wait for the deadline, however, and sent another
threatening email (see page 15 in the linked filing).
November 3, 2006: Reply to Motions; Defending Open-Source Copyright
On November 3, 2006, we filed an
(basically, a rebuttal argument)
to Katzer's
motion of September 28th
in which he argues that copyright law shouldn't apply to his
theft of the JMRI files.
There are various technical elements involved, but the
most important parts are the sections defending
the use of copyright for protecting open-source software (pages 3 through 10).
The next steps were a reply from Katzer, due on November 17th,
then a decision from the Court. We will probably have a tentative
ruling the day before the hearing (currently scheduled for January 19th, 2007), followed
by the final ruling.
December 4, 2006: Activity on Motions and Copyright
On November 9th, Katzer filed his
Memorandum in Opposition
to our motion for a preliminary injunction to prevent further violations of
the copyright in the JMRI decoder definition files.
Included with it was a
declaration by Matt Katzer.
He argues that he shouldn't be held responsible for the actions of
KAM Industries, his company, and repeated the previous arguments
that copyright law doesn't apply.
Katzer also argued that he had stopped distributing any products with JMRI materials,
and thus the Court should not order him to stop infringing.
Not that it matters - once someone breaks the law and has shown that he will continue to, he can't get out of an injunction just by saying that he stopped breaking the law. Nevertheless, we tried to confirm whether Katzer was telling the truth, but his product wouldn't work and so we couldn't tell if he had stopped using JMRI copyrighted materials.
On November 17th, we filed a reply to this, along with declarations from Paul Bender, Bob Jacobsen (exhibits) and Alex Shepherd (exhibits), to set the record straight.
Also on November 17th, Katzer filed his reply to our memorandum opposing his motions to dismiss. He backed off his challenge to our copyright right claim - at least for the time being.
On December 4th, we filed a
Motion for Leave to File Surreply to Defendant's Reply Memorandum.
This is the legal mechanism to ask the Court to file a response to a Reply brief.
Normally, once the Reply has been filed, the parties can't file anything else.
However, under certain circumstances, the Court will consider a 'Surreply'.
We believe that because Katzer misstated case law and brought up new facts
that we should be permitted to respond to those,
which is why we sought 'leave' (that is, permission) to file the Surreply
and then attached the
The Court will first decide whether to consider it, and if
so, then take it into account.
January 19, 2007: January 19th Hearing
We had a hearing before the Judge on January 19th, 2007.
Two sets of issues were addressed:
- Katzer's motions re the Amended Complaint to dismiss for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted, motion to dismiss for failure to join a necessary party, motion to strike, and motion for a more definite statement.
- Bob Jacobsen's motion for preliminary injunction to prevent further copyright violations
The Judge quizzed both sides about the questions he'd previously provided. He then took the case under submission, which means he'll give his decision in a written ruling at a later date.
After that, there was a discussion of the scheduling of the next steps in the case, called a Case Management Conference.
If you're interested in those details, there's some additional information in the
docket, including
proposed CMC,
other documents.
But there has been other news.
We have been watching Mr. Katzer's activities at the Patent Office.
There were three continuation applications that were pending.
One issued as a patent recently, but should not have.
It was the exact same claims that were in its parent application,
and the exact same patent specification.
The only difference was the 5000+ pages of references which Mr. Katzer
submitted in response to our charges of inequitable conduct.
However, under 35 U.S.C. 101, Mr. Katzer was not entitled to get
another patent with claims that were the exact same as the
claims of an earlier patent.
The examiner apparently made a mistake.
The good news is that, after wading through all 5000 pages of
another continuation application, another examiner
rejected all claims and questioned whether anything was
patentable in the application.
As a result, Mr. Katzer abandoned that application.
While it is possible to revive an abandoned application,
it was great news to see that no patent issued from that application.
We'll post any other news
here and send it to the
mailing list when it happens.
Katzer's lawyers seized on that request, and
argued that because we'd not "joined all
necessary parties" -- that is, the current
registrant Jerry Britton who lives on the other
side of the country -- the judge had to dismiss
the whole cybersquatting claim. There is a legal
rule that a case has to include all people whose
interest might be seriously harmed, so that they
can have a say in the case. Katzer tried to use this rule
to force us to either drag in Jerry
Britton, another model railroader who just wants
Katzer to leave him alone, or drop our request to
get our domain name back.
To avoid bringing Jerry in, and to get our domain
name back, we brought a proceeding under the
"Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy" (UDRP).
We filed a complaint with the World
Intellectual Property Organization, describing
Katzer's misbehavior and misuse of the
decoderpro.com domain name and asking them to
order that it be returned.
Focusing on Katzer's settlement agreement, the WIPO panel returned a
that had an entire section on "Katzer's
Bad Faith", including:
It's undeniable -- this is a win for JMRI. An impartial
panel, experienced in Internet and trademark law,
has made a clear statement that Katzer had acted
in "bad faith". Although that's been clear to us
in the community since the beginning, having an
impartial panel ruling in our favor is a big step
toward holding Katzer accountable for his
actions. Further, it allowed us to continue to
press our cybersquatting complaint against
Katzer, and prevents Katzer from entangling Jerry
Britton in the case.
We are carefully considering an appeal of this decision.
As long as the Court's logic stands, we can't enforce our copyrights.
Further, we need to get the strongest possible decision from an appeal,
because the "uncertain law" will be clarified by that appeal and
will apply to other cases in the future.
We're going to need help to do that, and we're actively looking for that help.
The Court also dismissed our claim
against Katzer for
The Court apparently misunderstood the reasoning behind our argument,
and decided that we had waived our claim by saying that we were
only asking for the return of decoderpro.com "in rem". On the
contrary, we want Katzer held responsible under the law for
his illegal actions, beyond just being forced to return our domain
name (which we now have back
due to the WIPO, not the Court), and
we said so in the hearing.
We are considering
how to go about getting this claim reinstated.
We're considering what the next step will be. We can wait
until the rest of the case has been resolved, and then appeal this
decision (you can't appeal something like this until it's final, and
that generally means when the case as a whole is complete), but we
are also investigating other alternatives.
We've added a
separate docket page
for those who'd like to keep track of all the documents that will get filed.
This is an important part of the case, and we'd appreciate
as much help as we can get.
We're not just trying to get the Court's erroneous ruling
corrected for our own case, but because it's a very dangerous
precedent for other open source and free software projects that
might find themselves in similar struggles against abuse.
Please, if you know people in open source organizations, suggest
to them that they help with this.
We've added a
separate docket page
for those who'd like to keep track of all the documents that will get filed.
This is an important part of the case, and we'd appreciate
as much help as we can get.
We're not just trying to get the Court's erroneous ruling
corrected for our own case, but because it's a very dangerous
precedent for other open source and free software projects that
might find themselves in similar struggles against abuse.
Please, if you know people in open source organizations, suggest
to them that they help with this.
We included a claim under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).
You might wonder what DMCA has to do with open source software.
DMCA has two main statutes.
Section 1201 is the one which has to do with circumvention,
and it is used more frequently of the two statutes.
Many people in open-source and free software communities hate this section,
for good reason.
We are NOT suing under section 1201.
Then there's
Section 1202,
rarely used so far,
which forbids providing false copyright management information
or removing copyright management information.
We believe that
Katzer's removal of JMRI copyright notices, author's names, and license terms
-- which qualify as copyright management information -- from
our machine-readable XML decoder definitions is a violation of Sec. 1202.
We believe this section is a great weapon we can use against Katzer to
protect our intellectual property rights,
so we charged Katzer and his company with a violation of this section.
If we succeed, it will allow other open source groups to invoke this section
to defend their intellectual property,
and to obtain statutory damages and attorneys fees.
Katzer's lawyer has already said he doesn't object to either version,
so we expect this will be straight-forward.
In typical style, he misstated law and facts in these filings,
and didn't obey the Court's rules regarding notice.
We filed a
pointing this out, and asking that the hearing on sanctions
be deferred until proper notice had been given.
included additional misrepresentations, and the
denied our motion.
We felt we had no choice but to file our own
motion for sanctions to at least bring this
misbehavior to the attention of the Court.
On December 11th, the Judge
the filing of our preferred version of the new complaint and
denied the requests for sanctions.
This is a big victory for us.
We've learned a lot about Katzer's misdeeds over the
last year. This new complaint puts it all before the Court,
including Katzer's cybersquatting,
and will (eventually) force him to reply in detail to each item.
He's been able to avoid
doing that for almost two years, but his time is running out.
Katzer's reply to this is due on January 29th, 2008.
Katzer's deadline to oppose entry of this brief has now passed, and we hope that
the Court will accept it soon.
The next step will be Katzer's reply, due on Friday January 25th, which we
will post on the
docket page when it arrives, followed
by a hearing on March 14th.
But Katzer has repeatedly said that he believes that Jacobsen
is infringing multiple patents.
He said it to the U.S. Department of Energy and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory,
when he filed a FOIA request for information relating to Jacobsen,
and included a bill for $200,000 for the supposed infringement.
He also said it several times to the Court.
Because he has thirteen other patents,
Katzer can still use his patents against JMRI and other model railroaders.
Preventing him from asserting the '329 patent was therefore just the start.
There is more work to do to prevent Katzer from asserting other ill-gotten patents
against innocent parties.
In the meantime, to avoid judgment being entered against him,
Katzer asked the Court to dismiss our request for three declaratory
judgment causes of action relating to patent as "moot".
Katzer is saying that since he disclaimed '329, nobody has anything to fear,
and our patent causes of action should be dismissed because federal courts
do not decide matters unless there is a "case or controversy", in legal lingo,
keeping the matter alive.
(His motion asking for this is linked
Because Katzer has repeatedly said Jacobsen infringed multiple patents,
we'll be fighting this vigorously,
including filing a motion for early discovery to determine what other
patents Katzer believes that Jacobsen infringed.
We had pointed out that the '733 patent is invalid for "Section 101 double patenting":
It has, word-for-word, the exact same claims as an earlier patent,
U.S. Patent No. 6,909,945, which issued from '733's parent continuation application.
Katzer and his patent attorney, Kevin Russell,
had repeatedly filed patent applications that had the exact same claims as
in earlier issued Katzer patents.
(See the
Second Amended Complaint, paragraphs 135 - 221
for details on Katzer's double patenting.)
Katzer and Russell are supposed to tell the examiners if they file copied claims,
but they repeatedly didn't.
Most of the time, the patent examiners caught this and
rejected the claims as improper under Section 101 of the patent law.
Back in 2006, when we filed our original complaint,
we identified a number of examples of "prior art",
which are examples showing that other people had already created
what Katzer claimed he invented.
While we were fighting the anti-SLAPP motions,
we produced other examples of prior art.
Katzer and Russell took those examples, and added several more,
and submitted them as part of the application that later issued as the '733 patent.
In total, Katzer and Russell submitted between 5,000 and 6,000 pages.
Although the examiner who was
working on this application had also handled the previous application that
issued as the identical '945 patent,
she must have been overwhelmed by the thousands of pages of newly produced references,
and missed that those claims had improperly been filed again.
She allowed the '733 patent to issue.
Our Second Amended Complaint put this situation before the Court as
part of demonstrating that Katzer has a pattern of misleading the Patent Office.
With pressure on them over the '733 reference,
Katzer had Russell disclaim the entire '733 patent, as well as the '329 patent.
In the case of two most recent motions, however,
Katzer raised new arguments in his replies.
The only place we get a chance to refute those new arguments is
via a "surreply", but we have to ask the Court for permission to file that.
Because Katzer raised new arguments in his reply for each of two motions,
we've asked the court for permission to file a
surreply for the copyright motion and a
surreply for the patent motion.
These include the surreplies themselves
(copyright surreply,
patent surreply), if you'd like to read them.
The day before, the court had issued a
Notice of Tentative Ruling and Questions
which indicated that the preliminary decision was to grant some parts
of the motions and deny others. Much of the hearing was spent on the
patent aspects of the case, but copyright also received some attention.
We'll post the transcript on the
docket page and link to it from here as soon as it's available.
At the hearing, the Judge did not indicate what his decision will be.
We'll let you know as soon as we see it.
On April 4th, 2008, Creative Commons Corp, The Linux Foundation,
The Open Source Initiative, Software Freedom Law Center,
Yet Another Society and Wikimedia Foundation
filed a
request to be allowed to participate in oral argument
at the hearing
on May 7, 2008 in Washington DC.
Katzer promptly filed an
We filed a
reply which argued that
the amici have useful things to say, and requested that the
court allow them to present their views.
The amici also filed a
describing how they would be presenting
information the Court would find useful.
Unfortunately, the Court
denied the request.
Separately, also on April 4th, Katzer filed a
"Notice of Supplemental Authority".
This is a way to bring a recently-decided case to the
attention of the court. Katzer cited
Netbula v. Storage Technology,
which is about two companies that negotiated a contract so Storage Tech
could use copyrighted material that belonged to Netbula.
When that deal went bad, Netbula accused
Storage Tech of copyright infringement, but the Judge in the case
found for Storage Tech.
We've filed a
reply, arguing that this case is very different from ours.
In our case, we didn't negotiate a contract, and Katzer never did anything
to accept one; no contract exists or has ever existed between us, so
Katzer is clearly an infringer. Katzer seems to be citing this case
to attempt to befuddle the Court about the facts, not to update them
on the law.
We were first up.
The three Judges asked about
whether anything Katzer did could have formed a contract,
what we expected from him under our license,
and what effect their ruling would have on further proceedings in the district court.
They seemed particularly interested in the Open Source development
model, and whether Katzer's arguments meant that there was no way to hold
him to account for his infringement of the copyrights.
When it was Katzer's attorney's turn,
they asked him why Katzer didn't just accept
an injunction against using the JMRI files,
since he claimed to no longer use them and that
he had no future use for them.
He had to admit that the District Court Judge had ruled that the infringement could recur.
They next asked why Katzer didn't just comply with one of the
many options within the license for using the material.
In replying to this, Katzer's attorney claimed that
Katzer had downloaded the decoder definitions as part
of his interest in furthering industry standards, and that he thought
he could use them as he wished.
Complying with the license "never crossed his mind".
They also quizzed him about whether Katzer knew about the terms,
and how an author would go about
protecting his rights if Katzer's arguments are accepted.
One Judge wondered whether Katzer was arguing for "Too bad, so sad", and
asked whether this would make it impossible
to protect Open Source development under copyright.
It was a very interesting session, with a lot of thoughtful questions.
It was clear that the Judges had already carefully considered the issues.
There were enough questions that both sides were given
several minutes past the fifteen minutes allotted.
The sound recording, approximately 40 minutes, is
available here.
The next step will be the ruling from the Federal Circuit.
There's no way to know precisely when that will be, but
we'll post it here as soon as we get it.
In summary, the Court decided:
Specifically, the Court wrote:
The Appeals Court ruled that the lower court's decision is
"vacated and remanded". This returns the case to the District Court
for Northern California, which must decide on a remaining question
before issuing the injunction.
Although there will be some further proceedings, this is a huge
step forward for us. The appellate judges have ruled that when Kater
took JMRI files, modified them, and distributed them
as if there were his own, he was violating copyright law and we can
hold him accountable.
It's also an important result for open-source software in general,
because (to quote
Larry Lessig's blog):
Important clarity and certainty by a critically important US Court.
There's been a lot of public reaction to this ruling.
Our "Articles by Others" page
carries links to some of the commentary.
Included in this is our request for a preliminary injunction
under copyright laws (infringement and DMCA)
to stop Katzer from misusing JMRI files,
and Katzer's motions to remove
various parts of our Second Amended Complaint against him.
All of the documents will be made available on the
docket page
after they are filed.
first set,
filed Friday October 3, 2008 is our
(and related declarations)
for a preliminary injunction
under both copyright law and the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA).
second set,
filed October 10, 2008,
are our oppositions to two motions by Katzer.
Back in December 2007, he filed his
"Third Motion to Dismiss",
asking the Court to dismiss our DMCA and breach of contract claims.
He also asked the Court to strike our request for statutory damages
for Katzer's copyright infringement.
Our response
argues that these should remain.
In February 2008,
Katzer also filed a
"Fourth Motion to Dismiss"
seeking to have the
patent claims removed because he disclaimed the '329
patent. We argue in our
(and associated exhibits)
that Katzer is attempting to evade responsibility
for his own bad acts, and that the law
says that we can still hold him responsible.
Katzer's responses to these are due on November 7, 2008.
We then get to file a reply regarding the preliminary injunction
by November 21, 2008.
Those will all be added to the
docket page as soon as they are available.
At that point, all the paper briefing is done, and the Judge can
decide the motions at any time.
If he has any questions, those will be discussed
at a hearing, currently scheduled for December 19, 2008.
We filed an
opposition to this, pointing out that
Katzer's request didn't comply with the relevant
rules of civil procedure, and puts us
at an extreme disadvantage in rebutting Katzer's statements.
Katzer then filed another
declaration, and several days
later provided the declaration that he proposed to be sealed.
We replied, pointing out several ways that Katzer's
request was still in violation of procedural rules and with basic fairness.
The Court agreed, and
that Katzer could not submit his declaration under seal,
but could ask again. Katzer didn't do so.
He filed a
reply to our opposition to his motion to
dismiss our patent claims as moot.
He also filed a
reply to our opposition to his other motion, to dismiss
and to strike parts of our complaint against him. At first glance, this
contain the same arguments as before, trying to distract the Court
from the real issue that Katzer is likely to continue to assert his
improperly obtained patents.
Interestingly, Russell also filed a
"response", along with a
declaration from Katzer and a
declaration from Russell himself.
We're not entirely certain that this is even a reponse
to, because Russell is no longer a party to the case at this own request.
We're still studying these, and will determine our next steps soon.
As expected, Katzer also filed an
to our motion for preliminary injunction, along with a
declaration from Katzer and a number of
A first look indicates that Katzer is claiming that he does
have permission to use the JMRI content because he holds the copyright on a
QSI manual, because the JMRI decoder definitions are merely "manufacturer information",
and because they "build on an effort" started by Katzer "to construct a
master, uniform template of manufacturer's specification data".
We disagree about all of this, and our reply will strongly rebut Katzer's evidence.
Katzer is clearly still asserting that he has a right to use our
content in violation of our license, and that he doesn't think
he's done anything wrong. We also disagree about that. Our reply to
this is due November 21st, and will be on the
docket page shortly after it's filed.
We also filed a
motion to strike
parts of Katzer's and Russell's declarations. Although they
should be allowed to tell their story, they aren't allowed to just
assert things without justifying them.
The motion requests that the Judge disallow certain of their statements.
Katzer and Russell talk about their beliefs that Jacobsen infringed and that the
'329 patent was valid, but they didn't state the basis for this belief,
which is required by the rules.
Under the rules, Jacobsen is entitled to have those statements stricken.
We expect that Katzer will
respond to this pretty soon, and we'll post that when it becomes available.
Because Katzer raised new issues after opposition was filed, and because
we now have additional information, we filed surreplies to both Katzer
motions on December 8, 2008.
The copyright surreply
refutes some of Katzer's arguments by showing
that he has misquoted case law or used case law that doesn't apply.
Katzer had argued that no statutory damages or attorneys fees were
available to Jacobsen because the first version of JMRI wasn't
registered prior to Katzer's infringement, but we showed that it doesn't
matter that the version wasn't registered. As long as some versions are
registered, and Katzer infringed those later versions after registration
or within three months of publication, then statutory damages and
attorneys' fees are available.
We filed the patent surreply
because Katzer, and his intellectual
property attorney Kevin Russell, who had permission to file a response
but filed it 4 weeks late,
filed responses in which they, once again,
tried to mislead the Court. We argued that the Court has jurisdiction to
hear the '329 patent because of anti-SLAPP and because Jacobsen is
prevailing party. Katzer and Russell said that they disclaimed the '329
patent because of "practical considerations" and "economic reasons", and
argued that our jurisdiction arguments were a motion for
reconsideration. We responded to these arguments to correct the record,
and discussed some new information that we had learned.
The Judge quizzed both sides about the questions he'd previously
provided, plus some additional questions. There was about 90 minutes
of discussion. He then took the case under submission, which means
he'll give his decision in a written ruling at a later date.
In the main case, the next scheduled event is the long-awaited Answer from Matt Katzer.
The Court has ordered him to provide it,
and we're expecting to see it in the next few weeks.
After that, we have another
settlement conference scheduled with Judge Laporte
at the end of the month.
A lot has happened since the last settlement conference a year ago,
and we're cautiously optimistic that this one will be successful.
We'll post more information as it becomes available.
We still carefully considering it, and more information will follow.
There is one striking thing, however: Katzer is now suing Bob
Jacobsen for copyright infringement of the QSI decoder manuals and
asking for damages "in excess of $6,000,000"!
(page 28 of the filing)
We'll post another note on the updates page and via the email list
after we've evaluated the filing.
We can't talk about what happened, but the case didn't settle.
It seems we still have a long way to go.
The next step was for us to file an
to that claim, laying out our "defenses", which are the
reasons we think that counter-claim isn't legitimate.
We've done that today.
With this, and after only three years, the initial part of the
case now comes to a close. Both sides have laid out the
basic structure of their case. Now we move to the 2nd part,
where after some scheduling activities, the "discovery"
phase begins. We'll provide more information as we get there.
The next phase is "discovery", which involves lots of
request for documents, answers to questions ("interrogatories"),
and admissions, followed by depositions of various people.
Most of the information that's learned in discovery
has to remain confidential, so we won't be saying much for the
next few months.
After that, both sides are expected to file "Motions for Summary Judgment".
Basically, in civil cases like this one,
judges decide matters of law, while juries rule on facts.
If all the facts can be established through the discovery process,
then some or all of the case can be decided by the judge without
need for a jury trial. Motions for Summary Judgment
ask the judge to first decide whether there's any questions left about
the facts, and if not, to decide the case. Sometimes this is possible for
part of the case, but not all, in which case it's called
"Partial Summary Judgment".
Our Motions for Summary Judgment are due October 30th, followed by
opposition briefs, replies, etc. We'll post them here as they
become available.
That will be followed by a hearing on December 4th, 2009
on the summary judgment motions. The decision may come that
day, or may follow later.
If anything remains undecided after the summary judgment decision,
either because summary judgment wasn't requested on all parts of the
case, or because the Judge decided that some questions of fact remain,
there will be a trial. The trial is currently scheduled to start on
March 22, 2010. There will probably be a few motions, etc, before that.
It lays out the reasons that we think
that the
of last January should be overruled.
This is the start of the briefing
process, to be followed by an
(expected) opposition from Katzer
and a final reply from us.
Actually, the process is that they file a
for permission to file the motion.
These are generally granted, as it's
reasonable for the Court to get more information
when trying to resolve issues.
They've posted a
note on their news feed
descibing their position.
There's also a
podcast episode.
The Appeals Court has now
entirely in the
SFLC's favor on this, and will
consider the brief.
The next step is for us to file a
reply, and then for the case to be
scheduled for a hearing.
ACT's motto is "protecting small business innovation".
Their online blog had previously commented on the first appeal on their
ACT Online
blog. They were one of the few commentators that disagreed with the decision.
They're an interesting organization.
They apparently were
created in response to the anti-trust suit against Microsoft.
Despite having a
motto of "protecting small business innovation",
positions are often very closely aligned with Microsoft,
against the interoperability considerations
that help small companies.
It seems that Matt Katzer has interesting friends.
The next step, assuming nothing unexpected happens,
is for the appeal to be scheduled for a hearing date.
We'll post more news as it arrives.
Both sides have provided the other with huge numbers of
documents, answered questions, and desposed witnesses.
The process is exhausting, because we've been asked for all
sorts of things (have you ever had to feed a file cabinet to a scanner? Don't,
if you can possibly avoid it), and because we've had to go through
piles of documents provided by the other side.
The information from discovery has to remain confidential until it's
needed to prove facts for the Court, and even then Katzer can ask
that some things be sealed.
What we can say is that we've been able to get what we needed to prove our case.
Some of that will become visible at the next step,
which is the filing of Summary Judgment
motions at the end of the month.
our motion,
we're requesting
that the Court find Katzer liable for cybersquatting and copyright infringement,
plus certain parts of the DMCA violation claim, and that the Court dismiss
Katzer's counter-claim that our decoder definition files infringe his copyright on the QSI manuals.
Katzer's motion
asks the Court to throw out our copyright claim, and since
there would then be no copyright infringement, the DMCA claim. He didn't ask for
a ruling on cybersquatting or his copyright counter-claim.
The next step is for both sides to provide "Opposition" briefs, due
in several weeks. Those will possibly be followed by "Replies", and
other documents, before the December 4th hearing.
Juries decide whether disputed facts are true.
Summary Judgment is a procedure where the Court can
rule on legal questions where all the facts are settled, and
therefore the facts don't need to go to the jury.
The Court looks at evidence and argument about whether there is a
real dispute about the facts, so that it can first rule
whether facts are undisputed, and if so, decide
what they mean under the law.
There are two motions
for Summary Judgment. In ours, we're requesting
that the Court find Katzer liable for cybersquatting and copyright infringement,
plus certain parts of the DMCA violation claim, and that the Court dismiss
Katzer's counter-claim that our decoder definition files infringe his copyright on the QSI manuals.
Katzer in turn is asking the Court to throw out our copyright claim, and since
there would then be no copyright infringement, the DMCA claim. He didn't ask for
a ruling on cybersquatting or his copyright counter-claim.
Each side filed their motion at about the same time, then filed "oppositions" to the
other's motions. Finally, after getting approval from the Court, each side filed a
"Reply" on a few specific points. Each of these came with declarations and exhibits,
all of which are linked below.
In addition to these, there were a lot of procedural filings
that can be found on the complete docket page.
These were needed because
Katzer and QSI insisted that certain
documents be sealed, and the parts of the
arguments that refer to them be redacted from the
public. This in turn required various
motions to the Court to reqeust orders to
seal documents, etc.
The next step is the hearing on December 4th. Before past hearings, the Court has
provided a preliminary ruling and/or a list of questions the day before. If that happens
again, we'll post it as soon as possible.
Jacobsen's Motion for Summary Judgment
Katzer's Motion for Summary Judgment
The hearing closely followed
the three questions provided
in the
"Notice of Tentative Ruling and Questions"
issued yesterday:
The Court questioned both sides closely for about an hour.
(Unfortunately, due to Court rules, we won't be able to post the transcript for
about six months)
The next step will be a written ruling. We'll post
that as soon as we get it.
There is still a lot more to be done. Katzer may be able to
drag out and raise the cost of the preliminaries to trial.
We're going to have to raise the money to persist, and find
people to help with various things that still need to be done
but in the end we're going to win this.
It's been a good day.
ordered by the Court,
we'll have a
settlement conference
on January 28, 2010.
We hope that we can work something out either before
or at that conference. Settlement discussions are confidential, so
we can't say much more than that.
In the meantime, we've asked the Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit in Washington DC to delay the hearing on our copyright appeal.
If we can reach a settlement, there's no need for that hearing.
If we can't reach a settlement,
we have a trial scheduled to start
on June 1st, 2010 in San Francisco.
The steps leading up to that are listed in the Court's
scheduling order.
settlement agreement,
which is now a legally-binding contract signed by both sides,
accomplishes several things:
In the past, Katzer has told people that we've copyrighted
manuals that others wrote, or trademarked terms that belong to
others. Neither of these are true, and we've shown in Court
that Katzer has no evidence for his statements.
To prevent
there being any uncertainly about this, the agreement
explicitly states that we're not talking about anything from the
NMRA or other manufacturers.
This injunction is important. We consider his misuse of
JMRI's decoderpro.com domain name and the decoder definition
files to have caused significant damage to JMRI, and
this injunction makes it clear that the Court will not allow
it to happen again.
The goal was to make sure that this dispute really is over, and
won't rise from the grave like a zombie that has to be
fought over and over again.
Katzer has said that he just wants to move on and put legal disputes
behind him, and this provision is aimed at making sure that's
what happens.
As a matter of fairness, Jacobsen extended the same release to Katzer.
If anybody really does do something wrong, this provides a way
to deal with it, while making it riskier and more difficult
for anybody to try to make spurious claims.
Despite generous support from over a hundred people,
the costs defending against Katzer
over the last six years are significantly more than 100K$.
(Things like court reporters for depositions, travel
expenses, and expert witnesses have to be paid for, and it
adds up very quickly.)
Katzer's payment gets us part-way back to where
we would have been if all this hadn't started in the first place.
To be sure, he has had significant costs of his own, and he has to pay them
Although this doesn't entirely cover our costs, we believe this
is the best we could do at this point, and there was no
certainty that going to trial in June would result in a damage
award large enough to offset the large additional costs of a trial.
Sometimes, the best you can do is the best you can do.
This is not air-tight, in that it doesn't extend to
e.g. future patent complaints about future patents,
after the next 18 months.
We believe that
we've still got a very strong position on those,
as Katzer stated in Court that JMRI didn't infringe any of
his existing patents,
because Katzer's ongoing chain of patents
actually document the same set of claimed
inventions, and because quite a few people
have helped us accumulate several file drawers of
strong prior art to defeat future patents.
It's very hard to craft an agreement that constrains all
possible future behavior,
so in the end you have to
trust that the people making the agreement are going to live up to
the intent of it.
As Henry Stimson said, "The only way to make a man trustworthy is to trust him",
and that's what we're doing here.
We believe that this agreement has the right structure to motivate everybody to
just work on their own stuff without getting into fights, and
that it's fair.
We're going to trust Katzer to approach it on that same basis.
We could not have reached this point without the help of the
hundreds of model railroaders who have contributed money, time and
knowledge to this effort, the open-source advocates and organizations
who have worked on the legal effort, and particularly without the huge
efforts by Victoria Hall, David McGowan and the other lawyers who have worked
on this over the past six years. We'll have more to say about this
later, but the message for right now is that we all owe them
a huge debt of gratitude.
April 14, 2007: Patent Update
As of April 13th, the court hadn't yet issued a ruling from the January 19th hearing.
So the only news is that there is no news regarding that ruling.
August 6, 2007: DecoderPro.com Ordered Transferred
described previously,
Matt Katzer
registered the decoderpro.com domain name to
prevent us from using our own trademark.
He then transferred it to current registrant Jerry Britton
through a settlement agreement which required Jerry Britton
to pay $20,000 and Katzer's attorneys fees if Jerry transferred
the domain name to JMRI. When we
filed our Complaint with the court, we included a
claim for cybersquatting and a request that the
Judge order the return of that domain name.
and ended with the statement that:
The WIPO Panel then ordered the decoderpro.com
domain name transferred.
August 17, 2007: Ruling on January 19th Motions
On August 17th, the
Court ruled
on the motions from the
January 19th hearing.
We won on perhaps the most important issue, but lost on several others.
Perhaps the most striking part was the Court's decision to deny our
request for a preliminary injunction.
You can read the reasoning on
pages 8 through 11 of the ruling,
but the conclusion is:
The condition that the user insert a prominent notice of attribution
does not limit the scope of the license.
Rather, 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 where it would
not otherwise exist.
Therefore, based on the current record before the Court,
the Court finds that Plaintiff's claim properly sounds in contract and
therefore Plaintiff has not met his burden of demonstrating likelihood
of success on the merit of his copyright claim and is therefore not
entitled to a presumption of irreparable harm.
This is very troubling, both for us and for Open Source efforts in general.
September 5, 2007: Request for Reconsideration on Cybersquatting Denied
On September 4th, 2007, we
asked the Court to reconsider
its decision on the cybersquatting claim.
We believe that the Court misunderstood our argument.
Unfortunately, the Court has
denied this request.
September 13, 2007: Appeal of Copyright Ruling
On September 13, 2007, we appealed the Court's ruling on copyright to the
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington DC.
Over the next few months, a series of briefs will be filed, first
by us, then a reply from Katzer and then a final brief from our side before
a (possible) hearing before the Appeals Court next Spring.
September 14, 2007: Appeal of Copyright Ruling
On September 13, 2007, we appealed the Court's ruling on copyright to the
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington DC.
Over the next few months, a series of briefs will be filed, first
by us, then a reply from Katzer and then a final brief from our side before
a (possible) hearing before the Appeals Court next Spring.
October 31, 2007: Filing Second Amended Complaint
On October 31st, 2007, we filed a
requesting leave
to file a second amended complaint. This is a necessary step,
ordered by the Court, toward getting
the new complaint before the Court.
The motion includes two proposed versions. We believe that our
cybersquatting claim for Katzer's misuse of the
decoderpro.com domain name is a valid one, and we now have the
hearing transcript that proves we did not waive this claim.
We're therefore asking the Court to allow us to file a
version which includes cybersquating.
In the interest of time, however,
we've also included a
version without that claim
if the Court continues
to believe that we've waived it.
In that case, we're asking the Court to allow us to go forward
with the version of the complaint without the cybersquatting claim, and
to declare the decision on that final so that we can appeal it.
December 11, 2007: Second Amended Complaint Ruling
Although Katzer had previously agreed to the filing of either of our
draft complaints
(see above),
he's clearly still more interested in delaying the case rather than
resolving it, so on November 2nd, he filed an
opposition to our
request to file the complaint. He then followed this up
with a
request for sanctions.
December 17, 2007: Appeal Brief Filed
On December 17th, 2007, we filed our
appellant's brief
in our
appeal of the Court's copyright ruling
with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
It lays out, in detail, the legal reasons
we believe that the District Court's copyright ruling is
incorrect and should be overturned.
December 21, 2007: Yet Another Motion From Katzer
On December 21, 2007, Katzer filed his
3rd motion to dismiss
parts of the complaint. We're still analyzing it
and will decide how best to reply soon.
December 28, 2007: Key Open Source Organizations File Brief Supporting JMRI
On December 28, 2007, a
motion to file an amicus brief,
along with the
brief itself,
was filed in our appeal by
An "amicus brief" is a way for a "friend of the Court"
to explain to the Court the larger issues involved in a case.
They can be very helpful in making sure that decisions
with far-reaching consequences are made properly.
Here, the amici clearly laid
out how copyright protection is key to the success of open source and free software,
and educated the Court on why that matters.
It's a very strong argument, which should be widely read.
January 18, 2008: Our Response to Katzer's Contract, Copyright and DMCA Arguments
On January 18, 2008, we filed
our response
to Katzer's
most recent motion to dismiss.
That motion attempted to
get rid of various parts of our recent Second Amended Complaint
regarding copyright, contract and DMCA violations.
In our response, we show that Katzer misstated both law and facts,
and show that the Court should allow us to hold Katzer
responsible for his actions in stripping the
copyright management information out of the JMRI files, for repeatedly infringing
JMRI copyrights, and, if Katzer's argument that he had a contract is valid, for
violation of that contract.
January 22, 2008: Amicus Brief Accepted
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has accepted the
amicus brief filed by six free and open source organizations.
This means that the Federal Circuit will consider
arguments from the amicus brief when the judges hear
the case later this spring.
January 23, 2008: Deadline For Settlement Disclosures Set
The Court has ordered both sides to take part in a settlement conference,
now scheduled for February 13th before Judge Elizabeth Laporte.
The judge has
ordered Katzer
to provide his
"position on validity, enforceability and infringement of the '329 patent".
This order is a positive step for us.
We've been trying for years to get Katzer to say why he thinks his patents are valid,
and why he thinks 7,000 people have infringed them.
We think he knows that his patents are invalid and unenforceable,
and that he knows his claims of thousands of infringements are a dishonest
attempt to extract money that no one ever owed to him.
Many of his actions in this case seem to have been intended to delay
proceedings so he wouldn't have to provide a detailed answer to the complaint,
including this information. Now he's been ordered to provide it by January 31, 2008.
We're looking forward to getting this information.
February 12, 2008: Katzer Doesn't Provide Disclosures, Disclaims A Patent, Moves to Dismiss
Katzer had been ordered to explain by January 31st why he thought that his '329 patent
was valid and why Jacobsen infringed.
He didn't provide the disclosures required by Judge Laporte,
so he was in violation of the order.
Instead, on February 1st,
he filed a disclaimer of that patent
with the US Patent Office.
The disclaimer treats the patent as if it never existed,
so no one can ever be charged with infringing the '329 patent.
Getting that disclaimer out of Katzer is a victory for JMRI,
because it removes the threat of that patent.
February 13, 2008: Settlement Conference
On February 13, 2008,
we had a settlement conference before Judge Laporte at the San Francisco Federal Courthouse.
Discussions in settlement conferences are confidential,
so we are severely limited in what we can discuss about what happened there,
except of course what's in public orders. The case didn't settle,
and that's about all we can say.
February 15, 2008: Hearing Rescheduled
The hearing on Katzer's motion to dismiss contract and DMCA violations
(discussed briefly
was scheduled for March 14th.
The Court has ordered that this be combined with the hearing on his
motion to dismiss the patent claims,
and scheduled the combined hearing for April 11, 2008.
March 21, 2008: Katzer Disclaimed Not One, but Two Patents!
On March 18th, the U.S. Patent Office published two disclaimers,
not just one, that Katzer had filed on Feb. 1, 2008.
One is the '329 patent mentioned above,
and the other is U.S. Patent No. 7,177,733.
April 4, 2008: Two Surreplies
Normally, when one party makes a motion, the other party
gets to file an "Opposition", the original party gets to
reply to that opposition, and that's it. There's then
a hearing and the Court decides. The side making the motion is supposed to put all
their arguments in the original motion.
April 11, 2008: Hearing
We had a hour-long hearing in the Northern District of
California on April 11th, 2008.
It was nice to see so many supporters there!
April 16, 2008: Events in the Copyright Appeal
There are some recent events in our copyright appeal to the Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit in Washington DC.
May 7, 2008: Copyright Appeal Hearing
On May 7, 2008, we argued our copyright appeal at the Federal Circuit
in Washington DC.
Each side had been given 15 minutes to argue their case.
Chief Judge Michel, Judge Prost, and a visiting judge, Judge Hochberg, were on the panel.
August 13, 2008: Court Hearing
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
has issued its
in our copyright appeal, and it's a ringing victory
for JMRI and open-source in general.
It is outside the scope of the Artistic License to modify and distribute
the copyrighted materials without copyright notices and a tracking of
modifications from the original computer files.
If a downloader does not assent to these conditions stated in the COPYING
file, he is instructed to "make other arrangements with the Copyright Holder."
Katzer/Kamind did not make any such "other arrangements."
The clear language of the Artistic License creates conditions to protect the
economic rights at issue in the granting of a public license.
These conditions govern the rights to modify and distribute the
computer programs and files included in the downloadable software package.
The attribution and modification transparency requirements directly
serve to drive traffic to the open source incubation page and to inform
downstream users of the project, which is a significant
economic goal of the copyright holder that the law will enforce.
Through this controlled spread of information, the copyright holder
gains creative collaborators to the open source project; by requiring that
changes made by downstream users be visible to the copyright holder
and others, the copyright holder learns about the uses for his software
and gains others' knowledge that can
be used to advance future software releases.
In non-technical terms, the Court has held that free licenses such as the CC licenses set conditions (rather than covenants)
on the use of copyrighted work.
When you violate the condition, the license disappears, meaning you're simply a copyright infringer.
This is the theory of the GPL and all CC licenses.
Put precisely, whether or not they are also contracts, they are copyright licenses which expire if
you fail to abide by the terms of the license.
August 29, 2008: Status and Scheduling Conference
We had a status and scheduling conference before Judge White on August 29th, 2008.
He decided that both sides were to resubmit their motions to simplify the record.
We'll then have a hearing on all matters on
December 19th, after which he'd rule on all the motions.
October 10, 2008: Preliminary Injunction and Other Motions
At the August status conference
the Court decided that both sides would resubmit
their written arguments to the Court.
We have therefore filed two sets of documents with the Court.
October 15, 2008: Katzer Request to Seal Declaration
On October 15, 2008, Katzer filed a
requesting that he be allowed to file a declaration "under seal".
This is usually used for trade secrets and similar information
that shouldn't be made public.
Putting the information under seal allows the Court and the parties to reference
it while still protecting the information from public disclosure.
In this case, however, Katzer has also asked that Jacobsen
not be allowed to see the information.
November 7, 2008: Katzer filings
On November 7th, 2008, Katzer filed documents in the three existing motions.
November 21, 2008: Our Copyright Reply
On November 21, 2008, we filed our
reply to Katzer's opposition to our motion for
preliminary injunction (see previous item), along with a
declaration and a number of
exhibits. We point out his mistatements of
facts and law, and use his own exhibits to demonstrate that his
story of why he thought he can use the JMRI decoder definitions isn't right.
November 26, 2008: Katzer Opposition Regarding Declarations
On November 26, 2008, Katzer filed a short
opposition to our
motion to strikeDecember 8, 2008: Our surreply to Russell and Katzer
Normally, one side files a motion, the other side files an opposition,
and then the first side files a reply to the opposition. The reply is
not supposed to carry new argument. When one side doesn't follow the
rules and raises new issues in a reply, or when new facts arise, a party
can ask for permission to file a "surreply" to comment on the new
argument or the new facts.
December 19, 2008: Hearing in Federal District Court
We had a hearing before the Judge on December 19th, 2008. Three
motions were addressed:
Two days before, the Court provided a
Notice of Tentative Ruling and Questions,
which provided some background for what was going to
January 5, 2009: Court Rules on Motions
On January 5, 2009, the Court
ruled on all the pending motions.
It was a mixed decision: The Court denied our request for a
preliminary copyright injunction, and granted some of Katzer's
motions but denied others. We're studying the implications of this ruling
and will provide more information when we can.
February 4, 2009: Appeal of Copyright Ruling
Today, we filed a
notice of appeal,
a preliminary step to appeal the recent
District Court decision.
The next step is for the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to "docket" it,
at which point we'll have a better idea of what the appellate schedule will be.
February 11, 2009: Katzer files Answer and counter-sues for $6 million
On February 11, we received Katzer's long-awaited Answer to our suit.
It's a 29 page PDF document
available, along with all the other filings in the case, on the
docket page.
February 27, 2009: Settlement Conference
We had a brief settlement conference today, February 27.
March 2, 2009: We Answer Katzer's Counter-claim
On February 11, Katzer filed a
counter-claim for $6 million
because the JMRI decoder definition files
infringe "his" copyright in a manual
originally written for QSI to describe QSI's decoder.
May 14, 2009: Case Schedule Set: We Have a Trial Date!
The Court has
ruled on the schedule for the rest of the case.
June 1, 2009: We File Our Appeal Brief
We have filed our
Appellant Brief
in our
appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
June 15, 2009: Software Freedom Legal Center Files Amicus Brief
Software Freedom Legal Center
has filed an amicus motion in our appeal to the Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit.
June 29, 2009: Appeals Court Accepts SFLC Brief
Katzer had
to the Software Freedom Legal Center
filing an
amicus brief
with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit,
and the SFLC had
to those arguments.
July 28, 2009: Katzer Appeal Brief Filed
Katzer has filed his
in our appeal of the January ruling.
August 4, 2009: ACT Amicus Brief Filed
The Association for Competitive Technology (ACT)
has filed an
amicus brief
is support of Katzer in our
appeal of the January decision.
August 19, 2009: Appeal Reply Brief Filed
We have filed our
reply brief
in the appeal to the Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit.
October 5, 2009: Discovery Closes
The discovery process in the main case is drawing to a close.
October 30, 2009: Motions for Summary Judgment
As expected,
both sides filed Motions for Summary Judgment today.
November 25, 2009: Summary Judgment Briefing Papers Complete
The briefing papers for the December 4, 2009
Summary Judgment hearing have all been filed.
December 4, 2009: Hearing on Summary Judgment
The Summary Judgment hearing took place today.
December 10, 2009: Ruling on Summary Judgment
The Court has ruled on both sides' motions for summary judgement.
The ruling
is a very positive result. Some highlights, in the
order they appear in the decision:
Together, this set of decisions is a complete victory for JMRI
at this stage of the proceedings.
This was a decisive rejection of Katzer's arguments.
December 21, 2009: New Case Schedule
We have a new schedule for the case.
January 5, 2010: Conference Rescheduled
The settlement conference has been rescheduled for January 22, 2010.
We can't comment much more than that on the ongoing settlement discussions.
January 22, 2010: Settlement Conference
We had a settlement conference today at the
Federal District Court of the Northern District of
California. The case didn't settle, and we can't provide
any details of the discussions, but work toward a settlement
continues. It would be in everybody's interest if we can
find a way to end this and all get back to creating great software.
February 17, 2010: Settlement Agreement
We have agreed with Matt Katzer to settle the case
and end the legal dispute.
February 22, 2010: Injunction Final
The District Court and the Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit have now entered the final
documents in the case.
This means that the
is now in effect, and the
case is over.


text:
Samsung ST96 Review
Are you in the market for an inexpensive yet at the same time reasonably built pocket snapper, which delivers fuss free results at an inexpensive price point? Then the 14.5 megapixel Samsung ST96 is one of the more reliable exponents of the 'cheap doesn't have to mean cr*p' genre. OK, so it doesn't offer a touch screen or wireless image transfer as we've seen on recent Samsung point and shoots, and is in that respect more traditionalist. But, on the other hand, this just means that the camera is easy to pick up and use from the get go without any studying of the manual required (here the usual quick start pamphlet with the main guts provided on CD only).
Yes, JPEGs are a little soft straight out of the camera, but colours are flatteringly warm when conditions are ideal and the performance is no worse than that of most £130 compacts. Whilst hardly a ringing endorsement for the ST96, it's a case of getting a slightly better camera than the one you're paying for, which provides its own sales incentive.
It's packed with useful and effective features too, such as the fun smart filters and easy to use panorama mode, not to mention one-touch Full HD video recording. In all Samsung has delivered a tidy little package in the diminutive ST96. It won't change anyone's world, but it might just slightly expand the horizons of your average happy snapper.
Ratings (out of 5) | |
Design | 3.5 |
Features | 4 |
Ease-of-use | 4 |
Image quality | 3.5 |
Value for money | 4 |
Entry Tags
hd video, hd, 1080p, compact, wide-angle, beginner, 5x zoom, 2.7 inch LCD, 14 megapixel, samsung, point and shoot, slim, st96, Samsung ST96 Review

subset: commoncrawl


text:
While You Were Sleeping: Veteran Model Takes Over for Hailee Steinfeld at Miu Miu, Doo-Ri for Macy's, Plus More!
- 34-year old Guinevere van Seenus is the Resort face of Miu Miu, shot by David Sims, following 14-year old Hailee Steinfeld's playful Fall ads. [Fashion Copious]
- Doo-Ri Chung is following in Karl Lagerfeld's mighty footsteps and collaborating with Macy's. The capsule collection will go on sale after February 15. [The Cut]
- On a rainy fall day in NYC, under $100 crew neck sweaters are looking pretty perfect. [Who What Wear]
- Christian Louboutin is still seeing red. The designer's lawyers filed their first appeal after a judge ruled other red soles were not, in fact, infringing on any trademarks. [WWD]
- It's all about retro sophistication and an ant print. Get inspired by the outfit and jealous of the palm trees in the background. [Atlantic Pacific]
- Calvin Klein explains that when he first booked a young Kate Moss, he had been looking for "the complete opposite of all that glamour," in reference to the "buxom" models who proceeded her. [Fashion Etc.]


text:
- Pro Sports Blogging - http://www.prosportsblogging.com -
Pull out the hanky, Conger wears Mister Anderson's #
Posted By Bill Mahoney On Jul 5 2011 @ 8:23 pm In LA Angels Of Anaheim | 1 Comment
I am sure you were all wondering (not!) where is the Angels blog? We all had a few days off so maintenance could be done on the site. I think a lot of our posters were scared that this site was gone, but I knew better (not!). The people that run this are outstanding, so I really did know that we would be back real soon. And we are!!
I'll touch on a few things that stood out to me over the weekend. Hank Conger wears #16. Isn't there a former high profile Angel that used to wear that number? Yes, there was, and his name was Garret Anderson. Do you read anything in to that? I do. How many people wore Nolan Ryan's or Rod Carew's number after they left the Halos? The Angels didn't start retiring #'s until 1982, but no one used Carew's #29 after he retired in 1985. The #30 used by The Express was used by 6 players, until 1991. In this day and age though, if the team respects a player, and all their accomplishments, then that players uniform # is put in mothballs until the day it is retired. Anderson is the Angels all-time leader in hits and RBI's. He also hit the key double that helped the Halos win the 2002 World Series. This has nothing to do with Conger, who is a fine player, but no Angel should have a #16 on their back.
[1] [2]
And let me remind you that I am no fan of Anderson, the person. Most players are good guys, guarded (for good reason), but good guys, Anderson is not. In a roundabout way I used to work with/for the Angels years ago, and it was always a bad day when I had to deal with GA. When you work for a team, you position your questions on the side of being remedial. Anderson would have none of it, or me, or any other producer that asked him for a couple minutes. I know what you are thinking, "Media people suck, and only look to bury the poor baseball player". Some people do that, no doubt, but not me, or any of my cohorts. We worked for the team, man, and just wanted to get something from one of the all-time Halo greats. And he never said just no, he just wouldn't look at you, or he would look down and mumble something. Hey, say no, I'm cool with that, but being a jerk is uncalled for. And if any of you think you would be alright with it, than you are lying to yourself.
My biggest complaint with Anderson was his treatment of the fans. I couldn't count the times that GA walked past a mom and child, or a dad with his son that were begging him for a signature. I'm all for walking past the guys with the baseball card books that are just trying to make a buck, but kids with tattered Anderson jerseys, or carrying the days program. Come on now.
I finally found out the reason why Anderson wouldn't talk. He said that he wouldn't speak to someone who didn't get to know him, or just wanted to ask questions. Sorry man, but I couldn't be on the Angels beat 50 straight days. I was there about 10, and he said no each and every time, both verbally and non-verbally. No sorry, he did look at me once and say, "Ah, man".
Still think his jersey should not be worn by anyone. It deserves to be retired, and probably will in the next few years.
At least he did the interview with Rojas and Gubby. It was the shortest one this season though.
Russell Branyan is in the house. Branyan, who can't hit a lick anymore, finally found a straight fastball he could handle. Thank you, Chad Billingsley for that. Branyan's first career home run as a Halo helped them beat the Dodgers on Sunday.
Jered Weaver was an easy choice for an All-Star, Howard Kendrick was not. For just being a great team player, Kendrick deserves a shot. So far he has played 3 different positions this year, LF, 2B and 1B, and has just 3 errors, and none in the outfield, where he had never started a game before this year. Hitting .307 with 8 home runs isn't so bad either. I'm happy for the guy. I wonder if Weaver will start the game? I think he may lose out to Justin Verlander or Josh Beckett, but he is very deserving.
Is Peter Bourjos too fast? the guy gets to balls so quickly, that he sometimes over runs them. He can fly. Did you see the grabs he made against the Dodgers? I love that he is now taking charge in center. He wasn't doing that earlier in the season.
Now I love this Vernon Wells. Lately, every time he comes to bat, I expect something good to happen. 9 home runs and 20 RBI in the past 20 games for Wells. His bat looks quicker, and he is laying off the bad pitches he was swinging at earlier in the season. I'm sure it helps to be feeling more comfortable in his surroundings. Still not upset that I ripped him so much, but I'll sing his praises right now.
Just a few games left before the All-Star break and the Angels find themselves tied for first with the Rangers. Mike Scioscia is the best manager in baseball, or at least the American League.
And great showing Angel fans. I didn't see a ton of empty seats during the 3 games against the Dodgers. Nice stadium, great ownership, fun players, and no random beatings. Angels Stadium is a great place to watch a game. More than 42,000 of you packed the stadium for the 3 games. And most of you were actually in the stadium, unlike at Chavez Ravine.
Tyler Chatwood had a tough game on Friday, but Clayton Kershaw didn't very well for the Dodgers the next night. Mark Gubicza said it was tough for a guy to come back strong against the team he dominated the start before. When Kershaw got lit, I agreed Until than, I wasn't do sure about that.
Angels are battling the Tigers now as AL action is back.
Go Angels!!
About the Author
Article printed from Pro Sports Blogging: http://www.prosportsblogging.com
URL to article: http://www.prosportsblogging.com/2011/07/05/pull-out-the-hanky-conger-wears-mister-andersons/
URLs in this post:
[1] Image: http://www.prosportsblogging.com/psb/uploads/2011/07/garret.jpg
[2] Image: http://www.prosportsblogging.com/psb/uploads/2011/07/conger5.jpg
[3] Subscribe to author's RSS feed: http://www.prosportsblogging.com/author/steelbill/feed/
Click here to print.
Copyright © ProSportsBlogging.com. All rights reserved.


text:
Friend of Harpoon Night at Salt Hill Pub
Kick the week off the right way by joining us on Monday, February 25th, between 8:00 PM and 10:00 PM at Salt Hill Pub for a Friend of Harpoon Night.
Enjoy a pint of delicious UFO White with us and some friends during open mic night. Plus, there will be plenty of opportunities to take some some great giveaways, along with a chance to win tickets and an overnight stay in Boston to attend our Harpoon St. Patrick's Festival (March 1st & 2nd).
You won't want to miss out!
Friend of Harpoon
Just show your Friend of Harpoon card to the onsite Harpoon representative, and when you purchase a pint of UFO White, you'll get to keep the glass!
Not a Friend of Harpoon? Please sign up for our loyalty program and take advantage of exclusive events (including new beer tastings), deals (on things like Harpoon gear and skiing/riding discounts), and news from the brewery.
Not a Friend of Harpoon?
Join now and start enjoying all of the perks.


text:
According to a report in Thursday's Washington Post, Jobs is part of a list of commemorative stamp subjects planned for the next few years. Although his choice has not yet been officially announced, the newspaper published a secret list that included his name. Jobs died in 2011 following a battle with pancreatic cancer.
The list is drawn up in a collaboration between the marketing staff of the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) and a committee of prominent Americans who have been appointed by the postmaster general for that purpose. For the record, the USPS has noted that its choices are subject to change. While Jobs is shown on the list for release in 2015, the final artwork has not yet been acquired or commissioned.
Joplin, Chamberlain, Lennon
The list published by the Washington Post, which is reported to have come from the Citizens' Stamp Advisory Committee, shows such subjects for this year as singer Janis Joplin, musician Jimi Hendrix, gay activist Harvey Milk and basketball great Wilt Chamberlain. Besides Jobs, other subjects for 2015 include Tonight Show host Johnny Carson, characters from the comic strip Peanuts, singer James Brown and movie star Ingrid Bergman. Though a native of Sweden, Bergman was also an American citizen.
On the tentative 2016 list: George W. Bush, PBS animation star Dora the Explorer, and the current President of the United States Barack Obama. However, Obama's first name is incorrectly spelled "Barrack," so one expects the list is indeed tentative.
Commemorative postage stamps can be money-makers for the financially challenged USPS, which is also planning to roll out a stamp bearing the likeness of musician/songwriter John Lennon in 2016. The late Beatle would be the first non-American to grace a U.S. postage stamp.
It is likely he might find such an honor to be ironic, since the U.S. government tried during his lifetime to deport him and his wife, ostensibly because of a misdemeanor conviction for marijuana but more because of his anti-Vietnam War protests. Now, instead of sending him abroad, the American government wants him to help send mail.
Action Figure, Statue
Jobsian fans have been clamoring for more recognition for their hero, as if a best-selling biographical book and a biographical movie were not enough in the immediate wake of his passing. Of course, Jobs himself might appreciate the irony that he is now receiving attention for gracing the monetization mechanism for snail mail.
There have been other attempts to honor Jobs' memory. Early last year, for instance, a Chinese company released a realistic, foot-high Steve Jobs action figure for $99, clothed in his standard uniform of glasses, black turtleneck, jeans and sneakers. In 2011, another Chinese company created a bobble-headed Jobs figure, although Apple quashed that product.
In Hungary, sculptor Erno Toth has made a seven-foot, 440-pound bronze status of Jobs for display in a technology park in Budapest -- wearing the same wire glasses, turtleneck and jeans. The statue was funded by the owner of a Hungarian software company who had been inspired by Jobs.
Wherever Steve Jobs is right now, I'll bet its very, very hot.


text:
Hello my little Droogies! It's another First Firday - a Good one at that and I'm here with some groovy music to get your weekend started!
First up is Wretched - Dilated Disappointment from their newest album Son of Perdition
How about a little Onslaught - The Sound of Violence? Onslaught are finishing up their FIRST ever tour of the USA. Hope you caught them!
Now for something completely different.... a Viking Metal band from .... Illinois! Fall of Eden with Jagermeister. How can you not like a song called Jagermeister!
Savage Messiah's Six Feet Under the Gun from their newest release Plague of Conscience
Now this is guitar playing at its best! Shred-tastic!
And now for something a little "heavy".... Heaven Shall Burn doing Not My God. erm ok... BUT it features Burkhard Schmitt of Hate Squad ***swoon**** on vocals. This was shot March 26th of this year.
Here's one from the best metal band in the UK - Collapse. This is called Forsaken and is taken from thier Download appearance. And yes, Duncan's hair is just that beautiful! LOL
This Is The Last Call!!!!! well, your last video. A scorcher from Sworn To Oath. Keep it Metal my friends!


text:
Finance minister Arun Jaitley on Wednesday showcased the pre-budget Economic Survey in the Lok Sabha. As per the Economic Survey, the GDP growth for 2014-15 was pegged at 5.4 to 5.9%.
Passage of PFRDA Act, shift of commodity futures trading into the finance ministry and the presentation of the FSLRC report were the three major milestones of 2013-14.
* FSLRC, in its report, has given wide-ranging recommendations, broadly in the nature of governance enhancing principles for enhanced consumer protection, greater transparency in the functioning of financial sector regulators in terms of their reporting system, greater clarity on their interface with the regulated entities and greater transparency in the regulation making process by means of mandatory public consultations and incorporation of cost benefit analysis, among others
* Gross NPAs of banks registered a sharp increase. Overall NPAs of the banking sector increased from 2.36 percent of credit advanced in March 2011 to 4.40 percent of credit advanced in December 2013.
* RBI has identified infrastructure, iron and steel, textiles, aviation and mining as stressed sectors
* New Pension System (NPS), now National Pension System, represents a major reform of Indian pension arrangements, and lays the foundation for a sustainable solution to ageing in India by shifting to an individual account, defined-contribution system.
* Till May 7, 2014 67.11 lakh members have been enrolled under the NPS with a corpus of Rs. 51,147 crore
* Swavalamban Scheme for workers in the unorganized sector launched in 2010, extended to five years for the beneficiaries enrolled in 2010-11, 2011-12, and 2012-13; benefits of co-contribution would be available till 2016-17.
* Long-term external debt accounts for 78.2 percent of total external debt at end-December 2013 against 76.1 percent at end-March 2013. Long-term debt at end-December 2013 increased by $25.1 billion (8.1 percent) over the level at end-March 2013 while short-term debt declined by $4 billion (4.1 percent), reflecting a fall in imports
* Wholesale Price Index inflation fell to three-year low of 5.98 percent during 2013-14
* Consumer Price Inflation also showed signs of moderation
* Both Wholesale and Consumer Price Inflation expected to go downward
* Fiscal consolidations remains imperative for the economy
* Fiscal consolidation recommended through higher tax-GDP ratio then merely reducing the expenditure-GDP ratio
* Proactive policy action helped government remain in fiscal consolidation mode in 2013-14
* Fiscal deficit for 2013-14 contained at 4.5 percent of GDP
* Total outstanding liabilities of the central and state governments decline as a proportion of GDP
* India's balance-of-payments position improved dramatically in 2013-14 with the current account deficit (CAD) at $32.4 billion (1.7 percent of GDP) as against $88.2 billion (4.7 percent of GDP) in 2012-13
* The annual average exchange rate of the rupee went up from 47.92 per dollar in 2011-12 to Rs.54.41 per dollar in 2012-13 and further to Rs.60.50 per dollar in 2013-14
* India's foreign exchange reserves increased from $292 billion at end March 2013 to $304.2 billion at end March, 2014


text:
Chateau Meyney 2010
Bordeaux Red Blends from St. Estephe, Bordeaux, France
Critical Acclaim
James Suckling - "A wine with a pretty balance of spices, blackberry, mint, and ripe fruit follow through to a full body, fine tannins and a spicy, chocolate and walnut character. Pretty balance of fruit and tannins. " -
Wine Spectator - "Solid, if a bit chunky in feel, with a slightly squared-off charcoal and ganache frame surrounding a core of dark plum, black currant and licorice root. Shows more austerity than flesh, but displays outstanding length and cut. This has added lots of grip in elevage. For fans of the taut style. Best from 2016 through 2026." -
The Wine Advocate - "It is good to see this well-situated estate in St.-Estephe get back on track. The 2010 has loads of beef blood, charcuterie and smoked game along with black currant fruit. Some underlying graphite notes are also present in this full-bodied, meaty, fleshy wine, which has outstanding concentration and the potential to last for 15 or more years. It is a major sleeper of the vintage." - View All
Chateau Meyney Winery
Château Meyney is one of the oldest estates in the Médoc; in the 1660's it was a convent. Today the estate stretches over a series of hillocks overlooking the Gironde estuary. The nearness of the river, awesome in its serenity and flowing so close to the first rows of vines, gives the landscape a majestic air. The estate belonged to the same family for several generations, until the Cordiers became the owner in 1919. View all Chateau Meyney Wines About St. Estephe
(saint ess-TEFF) Rugged NorthernerSt.-Estèphe is the northernmost of the 4 communes hugging the Dordogne river in the Northern Haut-Médoc area of Bordeaux. While the appellation has no premier crus (first growths) of its own, it's southernmost chateau, Cos d'Estournel, is a highly acclaimed second growth, geographically separated from the famed Lafite-Rothschild in Pauillac by only a stream. Many believe Cos d'Estournel consistently produces wine of a first growth level.
Notable Facts
Wine from St-Estèphe typically matures more slowly than its southern counterparts. The soil is heavy and rich with clay, leading to wines with firm, muscular tannins and high acidity. Dark and opaque in color, the wines can be a bit austere in their youth, though most get softer as they age. Cabernet Sauvignon is the primary grape in most of the region's blends, although Merlot is important in helping to soften the wines. In volume, St-Estèphe creates the most wines of the top four Haut-Médoc communes. There are quite a few Cru Bourgeois properties, which are more approachable when young and, even better, lower in price. To get a feel for St-Estèphe, look for Cru Bourgeois like Chateau Haut-Beauséjour.About France - Other regions
When it comes to wine, France is a classic. Classic blends, grapes and styles began in the country and they still remain. Think about it - people ask for a Burgundian style Pinot Noir, they refer to wines as Bordeaux or Rhone blends - Champagne even had to pass a law to stop international wineries from putting their region on the label of all sparkling wine.The top regions of France are: Bordeaux, Burgundy, Champagne, Languedoc-Roussillon, Loire, Rhone. And these regions are so diverse! It makes sense that wine regions throughout the world try to emulate their style. Pinot Noir, Chardonnay, Cabernet Sauvignon and Syrah are no longer French varieties, but international varieties. They may not be the leader of cutting edge technology or value-priced wines, but there is no doubt that they are still producing wines of great quality and diversity.