[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar

From: Rjack
Subject: Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 15:09:32 -0500
User-agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20081209)

Hyman Rosen wrote:
Rjack wrote:
Hmmmm. . . "to the extent possible".

Here's an interesting case: <>

Court Upholds Copyright Infringement and Unauthorized Access Claims Where A Single User License Was Shared By Multiple People

The incorrect claims made by opponents of the GPL often center around assuming that once license has been granted to make copies, it is somehow not infringement when terms of the license are not honored.
Who are those GPL opponents "often" claiming such?

"Terms of the license" are not honored when they are illegal or
otherwise unenforcable under prevailing contract or copyright law.
The GPL contains terms of this nature.

We see from this case that the court considers it a violation of copyright when a license meant for one user is shared by many, even though the one user would have the rights granted to him by the license.

Is the GPL meant for only one user? I thought it was a "general
public" license.

And this case: <http://c>

The Court disagreed, stating that a claim of copyright misuse
 merely requires “a nexus between the copyright holder’s actions
 and the public policy embedded in the grant of a copyright.” In
applying this standard, the Court found that Plaintiff’s scholarly work embodied the type of creativity that copyright laws exist to facilitate.

Courts are quite capable of looking at an overall situation and noticing who is acting properly and who is not.

I haven't the slighted idea why you cited to this case but it's *OK*
by me since it strengthens my claims of copyright misuse as a
defense in SFLC GPL claims:

"The Court denied the motion to strike the defense of copyright
misuse because it is a proper defense during the period of misuse
and can be asserted based on Defendants’ actions vis-à-vis third

Rjack :)

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]