Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar

[Rjack]

David Kastrup wrote:
> Rjack <user@example.net> writes:
>
> > Hyman Rosen wrote:
> > > Rjack wrote:
> > > > Huh? What the hell does your cited case have to 17 USC 
> > > > 301(a)?
> > > Nothing at all, since federal preemption of copyright has 
> > > absolutely nothing to do with the GPL. The cited case 
> > > demonstrates that even though there was a contract between 
> > > the rights holder and the user, when the user violated the 
> > > contract, the court allowed a claim for copyright violation, 
> > > not just breach of contract. This is contrary to the claims 
> > > made by GPL doubters, who often incorrectly state that when 
> > > the GPL is not honored it is not copyright violation but just
> > >  a breach of contract. (And then go off into further error.)
> > They are correct Hymen. Section 2(b) is an *illegal* 
> > contractual term.
>
> Just for the sake of playing with you: if that were a case, the 
> legal document would be invalid.

The GPL is invald.

> Now if it were a restriction as compared to normal copyright, the
>  restriction could not be enforced.  However, the GPL is a 
> _permission_ as compared to normal copyright, and the consequence
>  would be that the permission could not be used.  Not that the 
> permission could be used, but you could ignore the conditions and
>  treat the licensed software as public domain.
You have lapsed into word salad.

> Why do all those defendants choose to come into compliance given 
> the option?
Verizon told them to kiss their royal purple ass.

> > Neither you nor the SFLC understand the difference
>
> You don't understand anything. Not even when it gets explained to
>  you.


> The main thing is that it is not in the interest of violators to 
> have the license voided.  It is all they have.

I agree. Instead of moving to void the obviously broken GPL, they
just accept the automatically proffered voluntary dismissal since it
costs them nothing.

Sincerely,
Rjack :)