[Top][All Lists]

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

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

From: RJack
Subject: Re: Utterly imbecile pinky communist Ninth Circuit 'judges' (Vernorscandalous ruling)
Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2011 15:44:00 -0500
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv: Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7

On 2/3/2011 11:24 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

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...

regards, alexander.

Caveat Emptor. You should'a bought a Cadillac. When you buy a car
from a company whose chief shareholder is the federal government, you
don't have to worry about those lawsuits. He. He.

RJack :)

reply via email to

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