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

[JEDIDIAH]

On 2010-09-20, David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> wrote:
>
>
> JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> writes:
>
>> 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.
>
> Before you even bought the upgrade?  Unlikely.
>
>> 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.
>>
>> [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.
>
> Uh, they _were_ defendants here.  The "guy on Ebay" however can't well
> be left alone to sell the infringing copy of the original full version
> pretending that the buyer can still run it with a license from Autodesk.
>
> If he sells them as interior decoration items, Autodesk would have a
> problem hassling him for it.
>

    Only one person should be on the hook for this shenanignan.

    The reseller can't control the actions of the original owner. He should not
be held responsible for the illegal actions of a 3rd party. This goes equally 
for the guy the guy on Ebay as it does for Blockbuster or anyone else that 
rents or resells software.

     It doesn't even matter if the architect was bragging about being a pirate.
The architect alone should be the only one on the hook here. Otherwise the
resulting precedent is nasty and has even more nasty implications for the 
future.

-- 
     The difference between a monopoly and a "market leader" is       |||
     that you can simply ignore a "market leader" and be no worse    / | \
     for it.