[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: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 14:41:19 -0500
User-agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20081209)

Ben Pfaff wrote:
Hyman Rosen <> writes:

Rjack wrote:
In each case filed by the SFLC, the defendants have always received a voluntary dismissal without any judgment being rendered against them whatsoever.
And no one is arguing otherwise. Most cases settle. The goal of
the SFLC is to promote compliance with the GPL. In each case they filed, the defendants or their agents wound up complying with the GPL. Thus the SFLC is achieving its goals.

Are we in an echo chamber? I must have seen exactly this exchange, with slightly varying wording, a dozen times or more by
 now.  Can't you guys find something new to talk about?

Unfortunately the SFLC and its cult of followers is one giant
propaganda machine. They mindlessly repeat legal untruths
until their talking points become urban legend -- if you repeat a
lie often enough it begins to assume an aura of truth. The way to
prevent this from happening is to counter with the truth.


Eben Moglen of the SFLC published a paper in 2001 titled *Enforcing
the GNU GPL*.

In the paper he claimed:

"Licenses are not contracts: the work's user is obliged to remain
within the bounds of the license not because she voluntarily
promised, but because she doesn't have any right to act at all
except as the license permits."

Since a Supreme Court ruling in 1927, DE FOREST RADIO TEL. CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 273 U. S. 236 (1927)

there has *never* been a federal court decision holding a copyright
license to be anything other than a contract:

"Although the United States Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 101-
1332, grants exclusive jurisdiction for infringement claims to the
federal courts, those courts construe copyrights as contracts and
turn to the relevant state law to interpret them."; Automation by
Design, Inc. v. Raybestos Products Co., 463 F.3d 749, (United
States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 2006).

Google [  GPL "not a contract" ] and it returns 22,000 hits. An
urban legend has been created. Interpretation of a copyright license
as a contract makes all the difference in the world concerning

The same effect is apparent when Free Softies falsely claim
"victories" by the SFLC over defendants they sue. The SFLC tactic
is to publish some phony legal claim and never publish any legal
scholarship or evidence to support their claim. They just sit back
secure in the knowledge that worshipers of the GPL like Hymen will
endlessly repeat their falsehoods. This also justifies the SFLC
lawyers sucking up big salaries from publicly contributed funds for
claiming legal nonsense as fact.

Rjack :)

reply via email to

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