Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar

[amicus_curious]

"Thufir Hawat" <hawat.thufir@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:wrsol.15172$Si4.3571@newsfe22.iad...
> On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 19:34:48 -0500, amicus_curious wrote:
>
> > I said that I think that it should not have copyright protection not
> > that it doesn't have it.  That would require a change to the law, eh?
> > But then there wouldn't be any issue for the SFLC to sue over either.
> > If you somehow got a hold of Microsoft's source, you would be able to
> > use it, too.
>
>
> Are you aware that (old versions) of Windows source are out there?  Your
> wish is just pie-in-the sky.  This whole thing goes back to visicalc, I
> believe.
That is more handwaving, I think.  Can you point to a site that actually 
contains Windows source from some old version?  In my history I have worked 
for companies that were subcontracting things to Microsoft and we had direct 
access to the daily builds of Windows, but there was a pretty strict NDA in 
place and anyone who might have wanted to leak it out would have been sued 
to a pulp.  As far as I know, that never happened.

Plus, you can't make a dime being a follower in a focused market like that. 
If you have source obtained in violation of the trade secrets laws and try 
to sell a Windows work-alike created from it, you will have very little 
success selling it and if you did you would eventually lose it all in court. 
Windows' value is in its brand, not in its code base.

Do you think anyone, other than the odd hobbyist, is interested in 
Visi-calc?  What could you possibly learn from the source?