Re: Utterly imbecile pinky communist Ninth Circuit 'judges' (Vernor scandalous ruling)

[Alan Mackenzie]

In gnu.misc.discuss David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> wrote:

> Red herring, since Autodesk did not complain about the physical copies
> being reused (like broken into pieces and used in an artwork) but their
> content being used in multiple installations while just a single
> license had been granted, this license being used both as a
> prerequisite for the upgraded installations as well as a recipient
> license for the resold physical media.

This horrendous twist in the USA courts' knickers arises from a failure
correctly to identify the essence of the original transaction.  When somebody
buys a shrink-wrapped piece of software, he is essentially buying a
license to use it on a single PC.  He is NOT buying the medium carrying
the software, he is NOT "buying a copy" of the software (whatever that
might mean) except incidentally.

As the owner of this license, the first purchaser should be free to sell
it.  The terms of the license would, of course, automatically apply to
the new owner.

When USA lawmakers start understanding this, then the ludicrous outcomes
of cases such as this will cease.

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).