Re: Red Hat pays $800,000 + costs for a patent deal

[Linonut]

* rjack peremptorily fired off this memo:

> Linonut wrote:
>
>>    The rights comprised in a copyright may be subdivided and
>>    transferred. 17 U.S.C. 201(d)(2) ("Any of the exclusive rights
>>    comprised in a copyright, including any subdivision of any of
>>    the rights specified by section 106, may be transferred as
>>    provided by clause (1) and owned separately."). In other words,
>>    a copyright holder may transfer the right to duplicate to one
>>    person, the right to distribute to another, and the right to
>>    produce derivative works to yet another. See ITOFCA Inc. v.
>>    MegaTrans Logistics, Inc., 322 F.3d 928, 929-30 (7th Cir.2003)
>>    ("Making and selling are distinct rights and you can assign one
>>    without the other."). 
>> 
>> Thanks for pointing me to that succinct validation of the methodology of
>> the GPL.
>
> Uhhhh... 17 USC 201(d) begins:
>
> "Transfer of ownership.
>      (1)
>      The ownership of a copyright may be transferred in whole or in part 
> by any means of conveyance or by operation of law, and may be bequeathed 
> by will or pass as personal property by the applicable laws of intestate 
> succession.
>      (2)
>      Any of the exclusive rights comprised in a copyright, including any 
> subdivision of any of the rights specified by section 106 [17 USC 106], 
> may be transferred as provided by clause (1) and owned separately. The 
> owner of any particular exclusive right is entitled, to the extent of 
> that right, to all of the protection and remedies accorded to the 
> copyright owner by this title."
>
> Are you seriously suggesting that use of the GPL transfers ownership of 
> the copyrights rights? Methinks more than the sky is falling.

Why did you ignore the "subdivided" or "in part" part?

Deliberate obfuscsation, or did you just not think it through?

Also, although I don't know this for sure, it would seem that you can
transfer rights, and yet also keep them, in the same way that you can
give out a copy of software, yet keep your own copy.

Really, I'm not sure that your gambit of making flip one-off legal
assertions is valid, given that lawyers and judges spend a lot of time
trying to figure out the actual meaning of legalese as it pertains to
specific complaints.

It sounds to me more like you simply float a kind of legal innuendo
against the GPL, hoping that it sticks in the mind of the reader.

Kind of like a Microsoft shill using "tone" to denigrate his opponent.

Are you a shill for Microsoft, or some other corporation?

-- 
Like almost everyone who uses e-mail, I receive a ton of spam every day. Much
of it offers to help me get out of debt or get rich quick. It would be funny if
it weren't so irritating.
   -- Bill Gates, "Why I Hate Spam" in Microsoft PressPass (2003)