[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Utterly imbecile pinky communist Ninth Circuit 'judges' (Vernorscan

From: Alexander Terekhov
Subject: Re: Utterly imbecile pinky communist Ninth Circuit 'judges' (Vernorscandalous ruling)
Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2011 17:24:35 +0100

RJack wrote:
> All this ruling really says, is that Hoops as a counter-claimant has the
> status of a plaintiff (not defendant) and carries the burden of proof
> and must plead facts to establish ownership of the copies in order to
> defeat a Motion to Dismiss.

I disagree. The court ruled:

"Hoops avers that it resold Adobe products it “purchased from third
party intermediary distributors,” Hoops Countercl. ¶ 8, but offers no
facts regarding under what terms these distributors obtained the

Some time ago I bought a BMW car from a nearby dealer. The car includes
tons of software and I even patched some of it (navigation computer
software originating from GPS stuff). Patching
aside, I have no idea regarding "what terms these distributors obtained
the copies" of the software in my BMW car. And now I'm being told that I
can not sell my BMW car without permission from if I live in
California... Luckily I don't live in the Ninth Circuit...


(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can 
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards 
too, whereas GNU cannot.)

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]