Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar

[David Kastrup]

Peter Köhlmann <peter.koehlmann@arcor.de> writes:

> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>
>> 
>> David Kastrup wrote:
>> [...]
>>> > 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.
>> 
>> Dak, dak, dak. Are you still in Germany? Don't you know that resulting
>> from Harald Welte's "enforcement" actions in Germany, the courts ruled
>> that the GPL falls under
>
> Fine. You might try to present a link for that claim
> Posting a link to some courts decision which has obviously nothing to do 
> with the GPL hardly counts as "evidence" of anything. Except for the 
> suspicion that you are lying, again

Oh, in most cases he is citing actual court cases.  They just don't
support anything he says.  It is just material for head-scratching.

-- 
David Kastrup