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

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> I find it interesting that none of the commentaries you dig up is
>> concerned about the small detail that the original versions of software
>> were resold after being upgraded with a seriously discounted "upgrade
>> versin" with specific licensing conditions pertaining to the original
>> copy.
>> 
>> Why is that?
>
> Piss off idiotic dak.
>
> "The purchased upgrades have no bearing on this case
>
> The court didn't address the issue of the upgrades because it has no
> bearing on the case. Nothing in the upgrade agreement specifically
> transferred ownership of the R14 copies back to Autodesk. So, if it can
> be proved that CTA owned the R14 copies before the upgrade, they still
> owned them after the upgrade (in addition to the R15 copies).

Oh, they owned the copies alright (and Autodesk could not, say, ask for
them to be confiscated).  It is just the content that was no longer
licensable.

> The requirement to destroy the copies by itself doesn't transfer
> ownership (this is consistent with precedent in United States v. Wise
> where transfer of copies strictly for the purpose of salvage or
> destruction still constitutes a sale or other transfer of ownership).

Sure.  But that does not mean that the copyright ceases to exist.  Or
the licensing conditions cease to exist.  First sales rights can't be
duplicated.

> This may seem unfair from Autodesk's point of view, but considering it
> from CTA's point of view, they may view the "upgrade" discount similar
> to a "frequent customer" discount. I often buy books from the
> bookstore at a similar type of discount for being a frequent
> buyer. But this doesn't mean that the bookstore gets my previously
> purchased books back in exchange for the discount.

Uh, the license of the upgrade here specifically addressed the usage
rights of the original copy's contents.

-- 
David Kastrup