Re: Psystar's legal reply brief in response to Apple

[Alexander Terekhov]

ZnU wrote:
> 
> In article <4C580742.2EB401D9@web.de>,
>  Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> wrote:
> 
> > It's short and really nice.
> >
> > http://www.groklaw.net/pdf2/ApplevPsystarAppeal-21.pdf
> >
> > "This reply brief addresses Apple’s response on
> > copyright misuse as well as those unanticipated
> > arguments that Apple made in response to the
> > sealing-order and scope-of-the-injunction issues.
> >
> > COPYRIGHT MISUSE
> >
> > Copyright gives authors the right to control
> > the copying, creation of derivative works from, and
> > distribution of their works. As Apple correctly
> > points out, copyright allows authors to refuse to
> > allow others to do some or all of these things — to
> > veto copying, the creation of derivative works, and
> > distribution of their creative output.
> 
> [snip]
> 
> I actually agree with Psystar's interpretation of copyright law.
> Software vendors have created this legal fiction that software is
> licensed, not sold, and therefore they have the right to apply all sorts
> of post-sale restrictions, something that everyone would consider absurd
> in other markets. The case law on this issue is all over the map. How
> the courts will ultimately decide is not at all clear.

Hey ZnU,

listen to 

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2010/06/07/09-35969.wma

Isn't it funny?

Context:

http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=23751953-233b-46bb-8e55-650986134ebe

regards,
alexander.

--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm 
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can 
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards 
too, whereas GNU cannot.)