Appellant requests rehearing AFTER the parties briefed the case

No motions for reconsideration, rehearing, clarification...shall be entertained...

"both the 2000 and 2004 Agreements state that one user may use each of the licenses purchased. This provision does not limit how the software may be used, but instead defines what the purchase of one license gives the buyer. Therefore, because this provision is not a limitation on the scope of the license, Plaintiff is not entitled to a copyright infringement claim on this issue." ""Plaintiff relies on the clause in both the 2000 and 2004 Licenses that states "[t]his Agreement may not be assigned by either party or amended without the written consent of both parties, which shall not be unreasonably withheld.(Melnick Decl., Exh. 1 at 4; Exh. 2 at 4.) To state a copyright infringement claim based on a violation of this provision, however, Plaintiff has to show that this provision limits the scope of the license and that Defendants exceeded that scope. Regardless of the untimeliness of Plaintiff' request, the Court finds that this clause does not limit the scope of the license and is instead an independent contractual covenant. Plaintiff, therefore, is not entitled to a copyright infringement claim on this issue."

StorageTek admitted making at least 7000+ copies. Lisa K. Rady at StorageTek: "As you can see we have exceeded our 1000 distributions of NetBula". Michael Melnick at StorageTek: "The number that Holly has provided and thought it may be low causes quite a problem for you. We have only made 2 purchases for the rights to distribute a total of 2000 licenses."

A non-existent license does not exist. A revoked license ceased to exist. The scope of a non-existent license is null.

"We are in reason business." D.J. Alissandratos, Judge in the AMH case

Denied. See Bauman period

"Judges abuse the power of the judicial office when they abbreviate or change critical aspects of the adversary process in ways that run counter to the scheme established by relevant constitutional and statutory law." -- Prof. Lubet

"Petitioner requests that the Court consider his Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Exercise of Supervisory Authority, filed concurrently, on an emergency basis and enter a stay of the summary judgment proceedings at the district court, to prevent irreparable harm resulting from the district judge's several rulings which demonstrated apparent bias and pre-judging against Petitioner and were prejudicial to his rights."

Dr. Yue: "Following rules of civil procedure --". Court: "Mr. Yue, I am going to have you taken out if you don't be quiet."