[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar

From: amicus_curious
Subject: Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 10:21:22 -0500

"Hyman Rosen" <> 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:

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 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.

reply via email to

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