[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Wallace's reply brief
From: |
Alexander Terekhov |
Subject: |
Re: Wallace's reply brief |
Date: |
Fri, 04 Aug 2006 10:41:17 +0200 |
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> Yes, that is what "the physical act of transferring a copy" is all
That is what 17 USC 109 is a about, stupid.
Wallace wants to charge royalties for IP, not "the physical act of
transferring a copy".
regards,
alexander.
- Re: Wallace's reply brief, (continued)
- Re: Wallace's reply brief, Ferd Burfel, 2006/08/02
- Re: Wallace's reply brief, Ferd Burfel, 2006/08/02
- Re: Wallace's reply brief, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/08/03
- Re: Wallace's reply brief, Ferd Burfel, 2006/08/03
- Re: Wallace's reply brief, John Hasler, 2006/08/03
- Re: Wallace's reply brief, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/08/04
- Re: Wallace's reply brief, David Kastrup, 2006/08/04
- Re: Wallace's reply brief,
Alexander Terekhov <=
- Re: Wallace's reply brief, David Kastrup, 2006/08/04
- Re: Wallace's reply brief, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/08/04
- Re: Wallace's reply brief, John Hasler, 2006/08/04
- Re: Wallace's reply brief, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/08/04
- Re: Wallace's reply brief, David Kastrup, 2006/08/04
- Re: Wallace's reply brief, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/08/04
- Re: Wallace's reply brief, Ferd Burfel, 2006/08/04
- Re: Wallace's reply brief, David Kastrup, 2006/08/04
- Re: Wallace's reply brief, Ferd Burfel, 2006/08/05
- Re: Wallace's reply brief, David Kastrup, 2006/08/05