Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar

[Rjack]

Rahul Dhesi wrote:
> Rjack <user@example.net> writes:
>
> > "A copyright is a right against the world. Contracts, by 
> > contrast, generally affect only their parties...
> ...
> > The GPL is a contract... As such it involves rights "in rem" 
> > that affects all persons. Congress forbid this kind of 
> > copyright control...
>
> [ various other arguments omitted ]
>
> Here's the big problem with all these arguments: None of the 
> defendants seem to be making them.

Of course they don't make them! They know that a Rule 41 voluntary
dismissal by the plaintiffs will be coming in short order (check the
track record of the SFLC). So why is this a problem with my
arguments? Just because my arguments are never required doesn't make
them less than true or effective.

The SFLC will NEVER, NEVER voluntarily allow a federal judge to
interpret the GPL on its merits -- even if they must dismiss their
clients case WITH PREJUDICE.

Sincerely,
Rjack :)