[License-discuss] Essential step defense and first sale
Pamela Chestek
pamela at chesteklegal.com
Thu Jul 18 13:18:48 UTC 2019
No matter how long you beat your drum, or under how many email aliases
and pseudonyms, no one is buying your arguments here or on any other list.
Pam
Pamela S. Chestek
Chestek Legal
PO Box 2492
Raleigh, NC 27602
919-800-8033
pamela at chesteklegal.com
www.chesteklegal.com
On 7/17/2019 11:32 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> See, e.g., SoftMan Prods. Co. v. Adobe Sys. Inc., 171 F. Supp. 2d
> 1075, 1083 (C.D. Cal. 2001).
>
> https://www.linuxjournal.com/files/linuxjournal.com/linuxjournal/articles/056/5628/softman-v-adobe.html
>
>
> I've collected most relevant stuff here:
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/gnu.misc.discuss/jd7DiFRiH98/MaCxHL-lfpkJ
>
> Such as:
>
> "...the following factors require a finding that
> distributing software under licenses transfers individual copy
> ownership: temporally unlimited possession, absence of time
> limits on copy possession, pricing and payment schemes that are
> unitary not serial, licenses under which subsequent transfer is
> neither prohibited nor conditioned on obtaining the licensor’s
> prior approval (only subject to a prohibition against rental and
> a requirement that any transfer be of the entity), and licenses
> under which the use restrictions principal purpose is to protect
> intangible copyrightable subject matter, and not to preserve
> property interests in individual program copies. Id. at 172. "
>
> Unless you deliberately confuse ownership of copyright with ownership
> of copies it must be clear to you that all copies of copylefted works
> falls under 17 USC 109 and 17 USC 117.
>
> Am Mi., 17. Juli 2019 um 15:50 Uhr schrieb Pamela Chestek
> <pamela at chesteklegal.com <mailto:pamela at chesteklegal.com>>:
>
> 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 <mailto:pamela at chesteklegal.com>
> www.chesteklegal.com <http://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 <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
> <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/20190718/487f6082/attachment.html>
More information about the License-discuss
mailing list