Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar

[Rahul Dhesi]

David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:

>Rjack <user@example.net> writes:

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

>Do you even read what you are replying to?  If the defendant does not
>claim compliance, the GPL is not relevant to the case.

I think Rjack has a valid point that a court might well treat the GPL as
a contract in such a case.

But the defendant, if he loses, still loses big, as shown below.

If the defendant argues that the plaintiff waived copyright, the
plaintiff will point out that if there was a waiver, it was a waiver
only for a limited time.  As soon as the license (or contract, if you
call it that) automatically terminates, there is no GPL in effect any
more and there is no contract in effect any more and there is no waiver
in effect any more. If any further copying occurs outside fair use, then
all you have is pure copyright infringement.

At this point the plaintiff gets a permanent injunction and the
defendant is SOL.
-- 
Rahul
http://rahul.rahul.net/