[License-discuss] Essential step defense and first sale

[Alexander Terekhov]

Please don't confuse me with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_Pregerson

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/171/1075/2488277/


"Other courts have reached the same conclusion: software is sold and not
licensed. " :)

Am Do., 18. Juli 2019 um 15:51 Uhr schrieb Pamela Chestek <
pamela at chesteklegal.com>:

> 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>:
>
>> 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>:
>>
>>> 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
>>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> License-discuss mailing listLicense-discuss at lists.opensource.orghttp://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
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> License-discuss mailing listLicense-discuss at lists.opensource.orghttp://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/20190718/1a7734c5/attachment.html>