Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar

[Rahul Dhesi]

Rjack <user@example.net> writes:

>Neither you nor the SFLC understand the difference between a "scope
>of permitted use" restriction and a "condition precedent" to a grant
>of rights...

But the defendants' legal counsel do, and have apparently decided that
your argument doesn't apply. And the CAFC, in the JMI case (Artistic
license), ruled that it was "outside the scope of the Artistic License
to modify and distribute the copyrighted materials without copyright
notices and a tracking of modifications from the original computer
files." So the CAFC understands scope of use.  And I'm sure the
defendants' legal counsel do. Problem solved.

You also missed the simple fact that copyright law gives a copyright
owner several different rights, and different types of conditions can
apply to each of these rights as permitted by the copyright owner to a
licensee. You would have to consider each right granted to a licensee
and analyze it separately.
-- 
Rahul
http://rahul.rahul.net/