Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar

[amicus_curious]

"Hyman Rosen" <hyrosen@mail.com> wrote in message 
news:fHmnl.17636$cI2.8464@newsfe09.iad...
> amicus_curious wrote:
> > Have you bothered to read the lawsuit as filed by the SDLC against 
> > Verizon? That is certainly not what they were claiming, rather the fact 
> > that Verizon was distributing the router was the essence of their 
> > complaint.
>
> Perhaps they then became aware of the relationship between Actiontec
> and Verizon and realized that it was OK for Verizon to distribute
> routers without complying with the GPL. Not having one myself, I do
> not know whether the routers now ship with GPL notification. Someone
> who has recently obtained one could say. The manufacturer now makes
> the GPLed sources available on its web site.

They filed a lawsuit without even such an obvious investigation?  Surely you 
jest!  And they specifically charged that Verizon violated the GPL by 
distributing the ACtiontec router:

http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2007/dec/07/busybox/verizon.pdf

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 http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp.

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 License.

13. Upon information and belief, since at least November 17, 2006, Verizon 
has distributed
to the public copies of the Firmware in the Infringing Product, and none of 
these distributions
included source code to BusyBox or offers to provide such source code.

They go on to state:

"Therefore, under the License, any party that redistributes BusyBox in a 
manner that does not
comply with the terms of the License immediately and automatically loses all 
rights granted under
it. As such, any rights Defendant may have had under the License to 
redistribute BusyBox were
automatically terminated the instant that Defendant made non-compliant 
distribution of the In-
fringing Product or Firmware. Since that time, Defendant has had no right to 
distribute BusyBox,
or a modified version of BusyBox, under any circumstances or conditions."

So they didn't suddenly "become aware" of anything at all.  They just became 
suddenly aware that they were out to lunch on the law and were about to have 
their case tossed out of court, so they surrendered, begging Verizon to not 
make an issue of things and probably paying for Verizon's costs.  It was a 
total loss.