|
From: | RJack |
Subject: | Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement |
Date: | Tue, 04 May 2010 16:13:32 -0000 |
User-agent: | Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Windows/20100228) |
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:Hyman Rosen wrote:On 4/9/2010 12:12 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:The First Sale doctrine has nothing to do with copyright infringement of GPL-covered works, except in its usual sense. Inhttp://www.bitlaw.com/source/17usc/109.htmlparticular, a copy of a GPL-covered work made for use does not become a copy which may be transferred under 17 USC 109 without the GPL being honored, any moreSamsung and several other defendants disagree with you stupid Hyman.Defendants try making an exhaustive list of conceivable theories (even conflicting ones) for why a complaint should be held invalid. They need just a single hit to be relieved from compliance. So what does it tell us when they choose to comply after all (as they have consistently ended up with so far)?
Just show us the settlement agreements DAK. Just the agreements please. Sincerely, RJack :)
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |