Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar

[Rjack]

David Kastrup wrote:
> Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:
>
> > David Kastrup wrote:
> >
> > [... GPL ...]
> >
> > > There is no contract
> > Let the judges in Munich and Frankfurt know about that, dear
> > GNUtian dak.
> >
> > http://www.jbb.de/urteil_lg_muenchen_gpl.pdf 
> > http://www.jbb.de/urteil_lg_frankfurt_gpl.pdf
> >
> > (in English)
> >
> > http://www.jbb.de/judgment_dc_munich_gpl.pdf 
> > http://www.jbb.de/judgment_dc_frankfurt_gpl.pdf
> >
> > Pg 11, my dear. "Die GPL ... offer ... acceptance ... § 151
> > BGB."
> >
> > Both panels erred regarding the relevance of assumed invalidity
> > of the GPL 2b***, however.
> >
> > (From licensed German legal professional):
>
> Uh, you cite a comment dissenting with a court decision as
> precedence?
>
> That's not particularly impressive.  Not even for your standards.
Dissenting opinions are closely scrutinized amd many times highly
regarded for their legal scholarship.

> How about reverting to citing some non-connected court cases
> and/or adding LOL?  It still makes you look like an idiot without
> a clue, but it is funnier.

Sincerely,
Rjack :)