Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar

[Hyman Rosen]

Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> Would you make your silly claims if Verizon would call the download
> directory "actiontec box"? Face it: "gateway" is how they call the box.

The label on the download URL says "Router Model MI424WR FiOS Router".
Why doesn't the "label on the box" show up as the label on the URL?

But, wait, there's more. Let's take a look at what people who
get an Actiontec router see in their manual:
<http://support.actiontec.com/doc_files/MI424WR_Rev._E_User_Manual_20.8.0_v3.pdf>
Go to page one and see the prominent use of "Verizon" on the page.
Then go to page 204, and see this:
    C.4 GPL (General Public License)
    This product includes software code developed by third
    parties, including software code subject to the enclosed
    GNU General Public License (GPL) or GNU Lesser General
    Public License (LGPL). The GPL Code and LGPL Code used in
    this product are distributed WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY and are
    subject to the copyrights of the authors, and to the terms
    of the applicable licenses included in the download. For
    details, see the GPL Code and LGPL Code for this product
    and the terms of the GPL and the LGPL, which are available
    on the enclosed product disk and can be accessed by
    inserting the disk into your CD-ROM drive and opening the
    “GPL.exe” file.

So, contrary to the claims that Verizon doesn't know that the GPL
exists, we see that a Verizon-branded product manual talks about
the GPL and that GPL notification (and perhaps source code too)
is shipped with the routers. So the remaining possible GPL violation
would be for someone who doesn't already have an Actiontec router but
downloads the firmware anyway, and this from a page labeled
"Downloading Updated Verizon FiOS Router Firmware".

Of course the SFLC dismissed the case. Verizon and Actiontec are in
compliance with the GPL.