[License-discuss] Essential step defense and first sale

[Pamela Chestek]

Your citations to cases that aren't analogous aren't convincing.

Pam


Pamela S. Chestek
Chestek Legal
PO Box 2492
Raleigh, NC 27602
+1 919-800-8033
pamela at chesteklegal.com
www.chesteklegal.com


On 7/16/19 3:20 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> Story end:
>
> https://www.itassetmanagement.net/2016/10/31/secondary-software-2016/
> https://www.usedsoft.com/en/lawyer-christian-ballke-on-the-legal-basis-for-the-trade-in-used-software/
>
> Funny:
>
> http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20110929014241932
> ("Psystar Loses its Appeal; Licensees Have No First-Sale Rights; Costs
> Awarded to Apple ~ pj")
>  
> "But there is one more important result here. Do you remember all the
> predictions on message boards all over the web by anti-GPL activists
> like Alexander Terekhov that someone could get a copy of Linux, under
> the GPL, and then make copies and sell them under another license,
> under the first sale doctrine? That fantasy has just died a permanent
> death. It was never true that one can do that. But now we can prove it
> with this Psystar ruling. Yes, Psystar can ask the US Supreme Court to
> review this. But seriously, what are the odds?"
>
> Am So., 14. Juli 2019 um 19:55 Uhr schrieb Alexander Terekhov
> <herr.alter at gmail.com <mailto:herr.alter at gmail.com>>:
>
>     BTW, after Vernor v. Autodesk there was UMG vs. Augusto:
>
>     http://www.phphosts.org/blog/2011/01/court-rules-that-its-legal-to-sell-promotional-cds/
>      
>
>     See also:
>
>     https://www.pcworld.com/article/258720/eu_court_rules_resale_of_used_software_licenses_is_legal_even_online.html  
>
>     Am So., 14. Juli 2019 um 16:01 Uhr schrieb Pamela Chestek
>     <pamela at chesteklegal.com <mailto:pamela at chesteklegal.com>>:
>
>         On 7/13/2019 6:58 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>>         The thing is that 17 USC 117 makes the act of running/using
>>         software unrestricted and 17 USC 109 also severely impedes
>>         ability to control distribution as far as copyright is
>>         concerned. So, you'll have to stick to contractual covenants
>>         and fight against
>>         https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficient_breach ... good luck
>>         with that :)
>
>         In both cases, only if you are the owner of a copy. "Licensees
>         are not entitled to the essential step defense." /Vernor v.
>         Autodesk, Inc./, 621 F.3d 1102, 1111 (9th Cir. 2010). It is a
>         rare decision that holds that a party is an owner of a copy of
>         software rather than a licensee.
>
>         Pam
>
>         Pamela S. Chestek
>         Chestek Legal
>         PO Box 2492
>         Raleigh, NC 27602
>         919-800-8033
>         pamela at chesteklegal.com <mailto:pamela at chesteklegal.com>
>         www.chesteklegal.com <http://www.chesteklegal.com>
>         _______________________________________________
>         License-discuss mailing list
>         License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
>         <mailto:License-discuss at lists.opensource.org>
>         http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20190717/3818cdf4/attachment.html>