Re: Utterly imbecile pinky communist Ninth Circuit 'judges' (Vernor scandalous ruling)

[Alexander Terekhov]

David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> Anyway: if you agree in the course of an upgrade agreement to destroy
> previous copies, I don't think you can well argue that selling them on
> Ebay counts as meeting that agreement.

Are you saying that Vernor bought "previous" copies *and* the seller
(architectural firm) retained and used "upgrade" copies (or sold them to
someone else)?

Please prove your claim, silly dak.

The 9th Cir. opinion (the subject of this thread) certainly doesn't say
that.

But it still boils down to this:

I, as an owner of multiple Philips LCD TVs with Ambilight (very high
quality and best experience, highly recommended) receive an offer from
Philips to buy the latest and greatest version at discounted price.

The fine print says that I must "destroy" all my Philips LCD TVs
previously bought from Philips. 

Instead, I sell all my old TVs to you for 0.01 EURO.

Question: Am I guilty of trafficking in stolen goods?

Are you also a criminal for using one of my old TVs?

See the light now, silly?

regards,
alexander.

-- 
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm 
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can 
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards 
too, whereas GNU cannot.)