Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar

[Rjack]

Rahul Dhesi wrote:
> 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.

Uhhh... how did you learn this? The only verifiable records I have
seen are voluntary dismissals.

> 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.

WTF does the Artistic License have to do with the GPL?
You're attempting to construct a Straw Man argument.

You should also keep in mind that the BusyBox cases were filed in
the Second Circuit. The CAFC's Artistic opinion is non-precedental
and conflicts with other Circuits. The Second Circuit law is totally
different:

"Generally speaking, New York respects a presumption that terms of a
contract are covenants rather than conditions. See Grand Union Co.
v. Cord Meyer Dev. Co. , 761 F.2d 141, 147 (2d Cir. 1985) ("In the
absence of more compelling evidence that the parties intended to
create a condition, the negotiation provision must be construed as a
promise or covenant."); Warth v. Greif , 106 N.Y.S. 163, 165 (2d
Dep't 1907) ("The law favors covenants, rather than conditions
precedent."), aff'd , 193 N.Y. 661 (1908)";  Graham v. James, 144
F.3d 229 (C.A.2 (N.Y.), 1998).

> 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.

Why do say that I missed the "bundle of rights" concept concerning
Section 106? Where did I miss that concept?

> You would have to consider each right granted to a licensee and
> analyze it separately.

Sincerely,
Rjack :)