Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar

[Rjack]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> Rjack wrote:
> > "2(b)
>
> This provision is not in GPLv3, for what that's worth.
>
> > Congress forbid this kind of copyright control
>
> For some unfathomable reason, you keep pointing to the preemption
>  clause as if it means something to the incorrect ideas you 
> propose. It doesn't. In any case, the fallback provisions of the 
> GPL are that if you cannot distribute under its terms, then you 
> may not distribute at all, so no user will be denied his freedoms
>  because of this.

Unfortunately your "fallback" provision, that a failed contract
cannot supply grounds for claims of promissory estoppel, is a
figment of Richard Stallman's fertile imagination -- the same
imagination that conjured up the idea that a copyright license was
not a contract.
http://lists.essential.org/upd-discuss/msg00131.html

The GPL is a public contract of adhesion and will be interpreted
strictly against the drafter.

> > It is time for you to admit that Congress writes the copyright 
> > laws and not socialist zealots like Richard Stallman.
>
> Even socialist zealots are given the exclusive right to control 
> how their copyrighted works are copied and distributed.
So long as the control is restricted by contractual privity.

> Your bitterness and resentment of largess in which you may not 
> participate must be gnawing at you painfully.

Oh goody! Oh boy! Now you're a friggin' psychotherapist.

> I suggest that since you are incapable of dealing with GPLed 
> software, just pretend it doesn't exist.

I suggest that since you are incapable of accepting legal reality,
you should probably avoid intellectual property discussions and
become a vegetable farmer.

Sincerely,
Rjack :)