[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Eben was absent that day in law school
From: |
Alexander Terekhov |
Subject: |
Re: Eben was absent that day in law school |
Date: |
Wed, 22 Feb 2006 14:55:33 +0100 |
David Kastrup wrote:
>
> Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:
>
> > Isaac wrote:
> > [...]
> >> Nonsense.
> >
> > Breaking new.
> >
> > Barnes & Thornburg LLP on the GPL (Wallace v IBM et al):
> >
> > ---------
> > Although it is not clear how it is relevant to whether the per se or
> > rule of reason analysis would apply, Plaintiff also argues that the
> > GPL "purports to defeat the requirements of contractual privity and
> > thus evade the prohibition under 17 U.S.C. 301 concerning the
> > contractual regulation of copyrights". (Response at 4.) Section 301
> > of 17 U.S.C., however, concerns the preemptive effect of the Copyright
> > Act with respect to other laws and does not prohibit "contractual
> > regulation of copyrights". To the contrary, as is evident from the
> > ProCD case Plaintiff cites, copyrights may be licensed by a uniform
> > contract effective against all who choose to use it. (Response at 6)
> > (citing ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447, 1454 (7th Cir. 1996).)
> > The court in ProCD held that a "shrinkwrap" software license, that
> > is, a license that accompanies software limiting its use, is an
> > effective contract under the UCC against anyone who receives the
> > terms of the license and uses the software. Id. at 1452. The court
> > also held that state enforcement of such contracts under the UCC
> > would not be preempted by the Copyright Act or 17 U.S.C. ยง 301. Id.
> > The GPL, like the shrinkwrap license in ProCD, is a license
> > applicable to anyone who receives its terms and chooses to use it,
> > and by using it, accepts the terms under which the software was
> > offered. Id.
> > ---------
> >
> > My, this is such a fun. Kudos to Wallace.
>
> For making a royal fool of himself? Have you ever seen a contract
> stating:
>
> 5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not
> signed it.
Dak, dak, dak. The snippet that I've quoted comes from
Kendall Millard
Michael Gottschlich (#22668-49)
Kendall Millard (#25430-49)
Barnes & Thornburg LLP
11 South Meridian Street
Indianapolis, Indiana 46204
Telephone: (317) 236-1313
Facsimile: (317) 231-7433
Attorneys for Defendant, International
Business Machines Corporation
Case 1:05-cv-00678-RLY-VSS Document 56
not Wallace.
regards,
alexander.
- Re: Eben was absent that day in law school, (continued)
- Re: Eben was absent that day in law school, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/02/22
- Re: Eben was absent that day in law school, David Kastrup, 2006/02/22
- Re: Eben was absent that day in law school, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/02/22
- Re: Eben was absent that day in law school, David Kastrup, 2006/02/22
- Re: Eben was absent that day in law school, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/02/22
- Re: Eben was absent that day in law school, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/02/22
- Re: Eben was absent that day in law school, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/02/22
- Re: Eben was absent that day in law school, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/02/22
- Re: Eben was absent that day in law school, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/02/22
- Re: Eben was absent that day in law school, David Kastrup, 2006/02/22
- Re: Eben was absent that day in law school,
Alexander Terekhov <=
- Re: Eben was absent that day in law school, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra, 2006/02/23
- Message not available
- Re: Eben was absent that day in law school, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/02/24