gnu-misc-discuss
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar


From: Rjack
Subject: Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 17:56:33 -0500
User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Windows/20081209)

Peter Köhlmann wrote:
Rjack wrote:

David Kastrup wrote:
Hyman Rosen <address@hidden> writes:

Rjack wrote:
The BusyBox suits are over. Get over spinning the hypothetical settlements.
After each case was settled, the defendants or their agents
 made the source code properly available under the GPL.

Move on to creating explanations to justify the SFLC's evasion of an interpretation of the GPL on its merits in
the upcoming expected voluntary dismissal in the Cisco
case.
The explanation is that once the parties reach agreement on
a settlement, the case is dismissed. Courts do not hold
trials when the parties no longer have a dispute.
Also there is no "evasion of an interpretation of the GPL"
since the GPL is not even under dispute.  It would only be
under dispute if the defendants claimed compliance as a
defense.  The cases up to now have been cut&dry sufficiently
for that not to be a viable option.

So even if the SFLC carried on, they'd get an interpretation
of the validity of copyright law in general rather than of
the GPL. Nothing interesting in that.

Would the GPL be construed as a contract and interpreted under
state law?

No. It is a licence

And you are dumb. Incredibly so

Are the appellate judges who authored the following decisions also
incredibly dumb?

"Whether express or implied, a license is a contract 'governed
by ordinary principles of state contract law.'"; McCoy v.
Mitsuboshi Cutlery, Inc., 67. F.3d 917, (United States Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit 1995)

"Although the United States Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C.  101-
1332, grants exclusive jurisdiction for infringement claims to the
federal courts, those courts construe copyrights as contracts and
turn to the relevant state law to interpret them."; Automation by
Design, Inc. v. Raybestos Products Co., 463 F.3d 749, (United
States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 2006)

Sincerely,
Rjack :)


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]