此文先是贬低岳东晓的律师，然后写的内容与法庭资料上的完全不符，但与SUN的狡辩接近，即使是有心人也不至于有这么好的想象力。联系到SUN的律师中有华人，不能不令人生疑。法官虽然维护SUN的利益，但对SUN的律师并不见得爱怜。有次法官就判决SUN的律师“Mischaracterize”(歪曲)法庭命令。现在“不方便”的MISCHARACTERIZE的手法与SUN律师的做法很相似。SUN的律师甚至把贺梅案的文件、和岳博士写的“朝鲜战争常见问题解答”都拿去作为证据，其手段可见一斑。

“不方便”的第一个MISCHARACTERIZE就是说岳博士作为“平民”试图代表NETBULA公司。这是SUN律师在法庭上的一个MISCHARACTERIZE，但法庭并没有接受。程序上，岳博士比SUN的律师清楚。比如在律师费问题上，岳博士指出SUN的律师违反规则，SUN的律师还不知道哪条规则，后来向法庭承认是他们的OVERSIGHT（疏忽）。在口头辩论时，法官提出一个最高法院案例，SUN的律师说没听说过，而岳博士知道。而且法庭的规则也很清楚，公司必须由律师代表。所以说岳博士想代表公司完全是无稽之谈。 因为那是程序上不可能的事。

就连法官也承认岳博士是在代表他个人的版权。相关的听证记录及论述在www.American-Justice.org上都有。SUN的律师自己写到：“岳博士和公司各自拥有哪一部分源代码是一个问题。”因为软件的很大部分是在公司成立前写的，版权属于个人。而且，岳博士起诉的版权证书上清清楚楚地写着版权所有人是“DONGXIAO YUE”。按版权法，只有版权所有人才能起诉。岳博士是根据个人拥有的版权起诉。版权证书上诉网站上有。

“不方便”的其他MISCHARACTERIZE就更粗糙了。比如他写道，岳博士指责JENKINS报复是因为“临走前接过此案，而且快速判决后走人”。这显然与法庭文件不合。早在判决前几个月，岳博士就写信给JENKINS说他有报复嫌疑。根据是其律师在SYMANTEC盗版案中听一个副法官说的，说不知为何岳博士得罪了法官，内定要判他输。后来法官判SYMANTEC获胜，岳博士发现真是如此。至于岳博士控告法官报复之后，法官拒绝退出、强行接过案子,再判岳博士败诉，那是另一回事。

另外，“不方便”说法庭已经裁决SUN的恶意欺诈不成立。这明显是在刻意替SUN抹粉。法庭根本就没有做出这样的判决。目前SUN欺诈的部分官司还在继续取证之中。

至于JENKINS如何判SUN没有侵权的，理由是从纯粹法律角度，结论是：“购买一个拷贝的软件但复制多个不属侵权。”按这个说法，谁都可以盗版了。对这个结论的分析，www.American-Justice.org上有。基本上，法官是混淆产权与合同权的概念，基本废掉美国版权法。至于接下来的律师费判决，更是离谱。SUN的律师违反规则，法官却说规则有点模糊，所以奖励SUN律师费，典型猪八戒的钉耙。这些在岳博士给最高法院的文件上有。

“不方便”还写出了一些法庭记录上没有的东西，比如说，他写到双方曾进行和解谈判，据查，那是双方私下的事，公开记录上没有。这个写手马脚也太拙劣了。

至于SUN穷凶极恶地对岳博士的家庭发起攻击，跟黑帮绑架小孩差不多。目的是想让岳博士取消其公司对SUN欺诈的指控。但公司的案子自有律师处理。

到底谁偷鸡不着蚀把米呢？SUN这么大的公司，盗版软件被活捉，居然有脸皮上法庭狡辩，其CEO以下被指着鼻子骂偷窃、欺诈。给美国上流社会、IT界的脸都丢尽了。以为靠玩黑的买通法官逼老岳交钱就能赢得正义？ 然后法官跟着玩下流的，结果是连整个美国的脸都丢了。美国人在自己国家胡来，这不是自己打自己吗？中国政府已经跟美国法院交涉，SUN等着瞧吧.

I am copying this email to Mr. Jonathan Schwartz, President and CEO of
Sun Microsystems, Inc. You are his agent and I feel compelled to
notice the principal about the potential RICO violations — your
actions will be imputed to him and his corporation. Consider this to
be an OPEN LETTER to SUN and its managing agents and anyone who may be
interested in this case. See http://netbula.com/ydx/ for information
about the case.

…

If SUN believes that its money can buy sufficient attorney hours and
manipulate the system to win this case, it is making a big mistake. If
SUN wins this battle at the end –US. Supreme Court — despite the
plain infringement by StorageTek, it will become the ruiner of U.S.
intellectual property laws.  It will not only shoot itself in the foot
on a global scale but also damage the whole western IP scheme — these
decisions will come back to haunt the whole IT industry. The same
twisted logic proposed by SUN’s attorneys can be applied in any
software piracy case. …By continuing this case in the Ninth Circuit and the District
Court, I am doing America and U.S. IT industry a favor. Instead of
letting the unjust decisions stand as the law of the land, I am giving
the U.S. legal system a chance of self-correction.

… This case will be the
ultimate test for the U.S. legal system and U.S. IP protection.

It is about moral leadership, if you understand what I am talking about.

Sincerely,

Dongxiao Yue

http://www.american-justice.org/

Dr. Yue’s Application for Stay before the U.S. Supreme Court (Referred to the Court for January 2009 Conference)

Supporting Documents to the Application for Stay before the U.S. Supreme Court

 Dr. Yue’s Reply Brief for the Yue v. Sun Appeal at the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal

Appeal at the Ninth Circuit on Disqualification of Due to Conflict of Interest

II.SUN’S SHAM ARGUMENTS

In Defendants’ Answer Brief (“DAB”), Sun claims that Netbula assigned the copyrights to Yue “after the close of discovery” in Netbula-Sun. DAB 2. This is false. The “00-SDK” and “2K4” copyrights were assigned to Yue on September 26, 2007. ER.3:17-20. Netbula deposed Sun’s FRCP 30(b) (6) witness Michael Abramovitz on October 23, 2007. ER.31:27-28; See also, Exhibits to Appellees’ Supplemental Request for Judicial Notice, SRJN071. There had been very little discovery in Netbula-Sun. On January 10, 2008, the Netbula-Sun court ordered that the “[d]iscovery issues shall be discussed at next status conference hearing” set for January 22, 2008. See, Civil Minutes (Document 136), Exhibit E to Appellant’s Request for Judicial Notice (“RFJN”).

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.

C. Default Judgment Should Be Entered Against StorageTek and Sun
On January 2, 2008, receiving no response to the FAC, Yue filed the motion for entry of default and default judgment against Sun and StorageTek.
Doc. No. 13 below. At the time, the case was presided over by the Honorable
Susan Illston. There was no order granting defendants enlargement of time,
and there was no order reassigning the case to Judge Jenkins. On January 4,
2008, Sun acknowledged that “[a] formal order relating the cases has yet to
be entered” and the case was presided over by Judge Illston. ER.24:27-28.
On January 9, 2008, after the parties completed the briefing on Yue’s
motion for default, Judge Jenkins entered an order relating Yue-Sun to
Netbula-Sun. The next day, the Executive Committee of the Northern
District of California reassigned the case to Judge Jenkins. ER.29. Even after
reassignment, no order granting Sun enlargement of time was ever entered.

Defendants claim that on December 14, 2007, at a hearing in
Netbula-Sun, Judge Jenkins granted them extension of time…

In any case, on December 14, 2007, Judge Jenkins was not the judge of
the Yue-Sun case, and he had no jurisdiction to grant any extension to the
defendants in Yue-Sun. "[T]he structure of the federal courts does not allow
one judge of a district court to rule directly on the legality of another district
judge’s judicial acts or to deny another district judge his or her lawful
jurisdiction." In Re McBryde, 117 F.3d 208, 225 (fn.11) (5th Cir. 1997)
(citing Dhalluin v. McKibben, 682 F. Supp. 1096 (D. Nev. 1988)). "No
express or implied power is granted a chief judge to affect administratively,
directly or indirectly, litigation assigned to and pending before another judge
of the court." United States v. Heath, 103 F. Supp. 1, 2 (D. Haw. 1952); see
also In re Brown, 346 F.2d 903, 910 (5th Cir. 1965) ("[O]rderly procedure,
of course, forbade Judge Cox to interfere with the handling of a case
assigned to Judge Mize.").

Yue filed judicial misconduct complaints against Jenkins at the Ninth Circuit. Jenkins received the first complaint in December 2007. Yue’s December 17, 2007 letter to the judge re-stated the basis of the complaint: Jenkins might have retaliated against Yue due a blog article Yue wrote.

The facts alleged in Yue’s allegation were fully capable of proof by discovery. In the complaint Yue filed against Jenkins, Yue gave the names of the magistrate judge and the attorneys who heard the story of Jenkins’s retaliatory intent. Jenkins’s denial in his ruling was not evidence. In evaluating the allegation of bias, "the judge must assume that the factual averments . . . are true, even if he knows them to be false." United States v. Balistrieri, 779 F.2d 1191, 1199 (7th Cir. 1985).

Jenkins would not even allow Yue to speak about his pro se case. “[N]o procedure firmly rooted in the practices of our people can be so ‘fundamentally unfair’ as to deny due process of law.” Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Haslip, 499 U.S. 1 (1991)(concurring opinion by Justice Scalia). The bias was total.

When Yue tried to make an argument against the “cease and desist” order, Jenkins’s reaction was: “Mr. Yue, I am going to have you taken out if you don’t be quiet.” This is not a situation where judicial temperament occasionally turns into judicial temper. “Arrogance and bullying by individual judges expose the judicial branch to the citizens’ justifiable contempt.” McBryde v. COMM. TO REV. CIR. COUNCIL CONDUCT, 264 F.3d 52, 66 (D.C. Cir. 2001). When a federal judge threatens force instead of resorting to reasoning in a civil litigation involving due process concerns, he fails to maintain the appearance of justice and his judgment is inherently flawed.

Sun is a large corporation. In the district court, it spares no effort emphasizing that Yue is just one-man. That may have been a factor in the decision below. However, comparing to the interest of United States and its rule of law, Sun and its CEO are negligible and utterly insignificant. The Court must reverse the district court’s erroneous ruling poisoned by apparent personal animus to restore justice and fundamental fairness in federal district court.

http://www.petitiononline.com/ToUS_SCt/petition.html

下级法院的判决已经激起强烈公愤。

http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?ToUS_SCt&1

岳东晓博士起诉SUN MICROSYSTEMS盗版反遭司法迫害的事传开后，数名同胞成立了一个团队予以援助。而湾区的李建东大师闻讯后，在愤慨之余，决定无偿义助岳博士。

       在2000年，SUN购买了1000个拷贝的许可权。其后，SUN把POWERRPC嵌入到关键产品里销售，大大超过了1000拷贝的许可。SUN的项目经理在内部EMAIL中写道： “正如你们可以看到的，我们已经超过了1000个POWERPC拷贝的许可。”SUN的内部文件称：“该软件多年来被无限制的拷贝，根本没有控制。”其后果是，众多公司获得SUN的授权无限制拷贝POWERRPC软件。SUN后来遇到技术问题，要求升级，导致侵权行为被发觉。
       岳博士在2007年11月起诉SUN时，认为这个案子铁证如山，SUN只要应诉案子就基本定了。但SUN没有在规定的20天内应诉。岳博士于是在2008年1月要求根据规则判SUN缺席败诉 （DEFAULT JUDGMENT）。美国法庭是法官负责制。当时，这个案子是由一个女法官主审。       先前，2007年11月，由于负责另一个案子的JENKINS法官在法庭上粗暴禁止岳博士递交文件，岳博士给当时的总统候选人巴拉克-奥巴马参议员写信，请求帮助。奥巴马收到岳博士的文件之后，将资料转给了加州联邦参议员包克色，后者向美国联邦司法部提出了质询。

岳博士要求判SUN缺席败诉之后，JENKINS法官把案子从那位女法官手中接了过去，然后制造了一份法庭命令。该命令称2007年12月JENKINS批准SUN延期应诉（当时他根本不是此案的法官）。这份文件是在2008年1月9日产生的（PDF文件的日期），却署上2007年12月的日期。JENKINS依据此文件拒绝判SUN缺席败诉。紧接着，他迅速宣判SUN获胜，并立刻结案，判决没有就侵权事实做任何实质裁决。当时岳博士正好因贺梅一家的事回中国，弄了个措手不及。之后，JENKINS于2008年4月去了加州的上诉法院就职，跟联邦法院BYE BYE了。

       JENKINS在离开联邦法院之前，把SUN的律师费申请交给一名副法官。SUN拼命增加律师费。本来在3月结案时只有7万左右律师费，但其后一份要律师费的5页纸文件就花了6万美元律师费。副法官没有做任何分析，就把SUN的律师费全部算到岳博士的头上。       按照北加州联邦法院的本地规则54-6条，一方在申请律师费前，必须提交宣誓证明说已经与诉讼对方进行协商、尽可能解决分歧，但SUN从为与岳博士有任何协商。岳博士指出SUN的这个缺陷，要求法院根据程序取消SUN的律师费申请。SUN的律师团承认，这是他们的疏忽。副法官在听了双方陈述之后，说规则模糊（规则说的是MUST），然后建议法庭命令岳博士为这一段法律争执缴纳１万多美元的律师费。        针对副法官的建议，岳博士提出了29点反对意见。其中包括判对方获律师费是鼓励盗版、岳博士不应该为对方的疏忽和法院规则的模糊而赔偿律师费等。按照联邦法，法院必须就诉讼人就副法官的建议提出的反对意见进行裁决。但法院一份半页纸的判决，以其“有权判律师费，所以律师费就是合理”这样的理由拒绝审议岳博士的29条反对意见，并命令岳博士在30天内把20多万美元律师费交清。       岳博士于是向第九巡回法院上诉，同时申请中止律师费判决的强制执行。第九巡回法院把岳博士的申请一句话拒绝，没有给出任何理由。岳博士于是在12月8日向联邦最高法院申请中止执行。在申请中，岳博士列举了SUN的侵权事实、判决的错误、缺乏正当程序，及奖励SUN盗版的恶劣社会影响。指出SUN盗版案的真相是捂不住的，盗版者都可以向SUN学习，合法盗版。同时，让下级法院强制执行判决，在这个寒冷的冬天，剥夺岳博士的住房、财产，对岳博士的小孩是无法逆转的创伤。该申请同时发给了中国驻美国大使周文重等人。大使馆数名负责人给岳博士大电话表示关注。      

加州的斯达克众议员也给最高法院去函。而下级法院则在12月15日追究岳博士是否藐视法庭。藐视法庭不成立，法院乃于当天发布强制执行令、查封岳博士的财产。       12月17日，最高法院约翰-罗伯茨大法官将岳博士的上诉发给最高法院全体法官，将在2009年1月初全体讨论。至此，岳博士起诉SUN盗版一案到了联邦最高法院九名大法官的桌上，希望美国最高法院的法官做出实质性裁决。

 

]]>