[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar

From: Alexander Terekhov
Subject: Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 21:21:49 +0100

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> >
> The actual URL for downloading is
> <>
> containing the string "actiontec gateway". Without discovery,
> it's not possible to know what the Verizon webserver is doing
> in response to this URL, and if that is a GPL violation.

You can't be that stupid, Hyman. The case was dismissed prior to

and you just need to visit the docket to see that no discovery requests were

The thing is that now it is irrelevant, given the plaintiff's claim that 

11. Upon information and belief, Verizon distributes to its customers
the Actiontec MI424WR wireless router (“Infringing Product”), which
contains embedded executable software (“Firmware”). Defendant also
provides the Firmware corresponding to the Infringing Product for
download via its website, at

12. Upon information and belief, the Firmware contains BusyBox, or a
modified version of BusyBox that is substantially similar to BusyBox, in
object code or executable form. Distribution of the Firmware, either as
part of the Infringing Product or by itself, thus inherently includes
distribution of BusyBox and, as such, Defendant is required to have
Plaintiffs’ permission to make any such distribution. The only such
permission available for BusyBox is the contingent one granted under the

and subsequent dismissal with prejudice. Hint:

Verizon: Hey busybox guys, we are doing all the bad things you have
alleged in your claims against us. Thank you for your voluntary
dismissal with prejudice.

Busybox guys: Oops.



(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can 
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards 
too, whereas GNU cannot.)

reply via email to

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