[License-discuss] Essential step defense and first sale

[Alexander Terekhov]

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>:

> 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>:
>
>> 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
>> www.chesteklegal.com
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20190716/54abc612/attachment.html>