[License-discuss] Essential step defense and first sale

[Smith, McCoy]

Plus, you’re not even doing it right.  You’re excluding the most relevant case, more recent than the cases you cite, from the highest court in the US:


But as already explained, we have always drawn the boundaries of the exhaustion doctrine to exclude that Activity [reproduction], so that the patentee retains an undiminished right to prohibit others from making the thing his patent protects. See, e.g., Cotton-Tie Co. v. Simmons, 106 U. S. 89, 93–94 (1882) (holding that a purchaser could not “use” the buckle from a patented cotton-bale tie to “make” a new tie). That is because, once again, if simple copying were a protected use, a patent would plummet in value after the first sale of the first item containing the invention. The undiluted patent monopoly, it might be said, would extend not for 20 years (as the Patent Act promises), but for only one transaction. And that would result in less incentive for innovation than Congress wanted. Hence our repeated insistence that exhaustion applies only to the particular item sold, and not to reproductions.
BOWMAN v. MONSANTO CO. ET AL. (U.S. 2013)
From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-bounces at lists.opensource.org] On Behalf Of Pamela Chestek
Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2019 6:19 AM
To: license-discuss at lists.opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Essential step defense and first sale

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<mailto:pamela at chesteklegal.com>
www.chesteklegal.com<http://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<mailto: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/20190718/0fd2e914/attachment-0001.html>