Re: Utterly imbecile pinky communist Ninth Circuit 'judges' (Vernor scandalous ruling)

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> Anyway: if you agree in the course of an upgrade agreement to destroy
>> previous copies, I don't think you can well argue that selling them on
>> Ebay counts as meeting that agreement.
>
> Are you saying that Vernor bought "previous" copies *and* the seller
> (architectural firm) retained and used "upgrade" copies (or sold them to
> someone else)?
>
> Please prove your claim, silly dak.
>
> The 9th Cir. opinion (the subject of this thread) certainly doesn't say
> that.

That is an interesting use of "certainly".

    B. Autodesk's provision of Release 14 software to CTA

    In March 1999, Autodesk reached a settlement agreement with its
    customer Cardwell/Thomas & Associates, Inc. ("CTA"), which Autodesk
    had accused of unauthorized use of its software. As part of the
    settlement, Autodesk licensed ten copies of Release 14 to CTA. CTA
    agreed to the SLA, which appeared (1) on each Release 14 package
    that Autodesk provided to CTA; (2) in the settlement agreement; and
    (3) onscreen, while the software is being installed.

    CTA later upgraded to the newer, fifteenth version of the AutoCAD
    program, AutoCAD 2000. It paid $495 per upgrade license, compared to
    $3,750 for each new license. The SLA for AutoCAD 2000, like the SLA
    for Release 14, required destruction of copies of previous versions
    of the software, with proof to be furnished to Autodesk on
    request. However, rather than destroying its Release 14 copies, CTA
    sold them to Vernor at an office sale with the handwritten
    activation codes necessary to use the software.2

I have a bit of a difficulty seeing how anybody with a modicum of sanity
left can claim that this is _not_ talking about a situation
_specifically_ concerned with upgrade licenses.  Autodesk makes sure to
spell this out in its complaint, and the court clearly states this as
relevant in its remand.

Maybe you should reevaluate your criteria for calling people silly.
They don't appear to do a particularly good job of making you look
smart.

-- 
David Kastrup