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

[JEDIDIAH]

On 2010-09-20, David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> wrote:
>
>
> Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> writes:
>
>> 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.
>
> I don't see this particular case's outcome as ludicrous.  The defendant

    It's ludicrous because the wrong person was being attacked.

    Instead of attacking the obvious pirate, Autodesk decided to ignore
the pirate's victim. This would be like going down to canal street and
ingoring the vendors but jailing all of the shoppers.

[deletia]

    The first element of the chain of rights for usage is the original
full copy. The person that disposes of that which still continuing to 
use the software should be the one that is viewed as the pirate (or 
whatever you want to label them)

    Just like if I sold my copy of Babylon 5.

-- 
     The difference between a monopoly and a "market leader" is       |||
     that you can simply ignore a "market leader" and be no worse    / | \
     for it.