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

[JEDIDIAH]

On 2010-09-20, Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> wrote:
>
>
> Piss off silly dak.
>
> "The purchased upgrades have no bearing on this case
>
> The court didn't address the issue of the upgrades because it has no
> bearing on the case. Nothing in the upgrade agreement specifically
> transferred ownership of the R14 copies back to Autodesk. So, if it can
> be proved that CTA owned the R14 copies before the upgrade, they still
> owned them after the upgrade (in addition to the R15 copies). The
> requirement to destroy the copies by itself doesn't transfer ownership
> (this is consistent with precedent in United States v. Wise where
> transfer of copies strictly for the purpose of salvage or destruction
> still constitutes a sale or other transfer of ownership).

    I would approach it from the other side.

    The old version of AutoCAD gives the original owner rights to use
the upgrade version. If they sell their old version then they no longer
have rights to the upgrade version. It's like they rented a movie from
Blockbuster and then copied it and kept the copy.

    The previous owner is the party engaging in piracy. They're the ones
that should get the boom lowered on them. 

    However, Autodesk wants to pretend that they can keep anyone from 
reselling their stuff regardless of the circumstances and the 9th circuit
is willing to go along.

[deletia]

    The rights of the original owner should have terminated. Their rights
in the full version they bought as well as the upgrade version.

    They should have gotten a visit from the BSA and the guy on Ebay should
have been left alone.

-- 
        Sure, I could use iTunes even under Linux. However, I have       |||
better things to do with my time than deal with how iTunes doesn't      / | \
want to play nicely with everyone else's data (namely mine). I'd 
rather create a DVD using those Linux apps we're told don't exist.