Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar

[Rjack]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU_Copyright_Directive
>
> <http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32001L0029:EN:HTML> 
>
>     (27) The mere provision of physical facilities for enabling
>     or making a communication does not in itself amount to
>     communication within the meaning of this Directive.
>
> Since Verizon provides a link to an "actiontec gateway" URL,
> it can easily be argues that it's Actiontec, not Verizon, who
> is making the software available.

You never lose do you Hymen? You just mooooooove the goalposts.

Verizon told the SFLC to kiss their R-O-Y-A-L P-U-R-P-L-E A-S-S and 
the SFLC complied by filing a F.R.Civ.P. 41(a)1 voluntary dismissal 
W-I-T-H P-R-E-D-J-U-D-I-C-E.

> Clearly, the SFLC beleieves
> so, since it is satisfied with having Actiontec provide the
> GPLed sources.

Yeh. . . especially since it ain't got no friggin' choice.

You should stop attempting to spin the BusyBox cases and polish your
tale as to why the SFLC will fail to get the GPL enforced on its 
merits in the Cisco case.

Sincerely,
Rjack :)