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

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:

> “First, we consider whether the copyright owner specifies that a user
> is granted a license. Second, we consider whether the copyright owner
> significantly restricts the user’s ability to transfer the software.
> Finally, we consider whether the copyright owner imposes notable use
> restrictions.”
>
>
> ...or as I like to read it:
>
> 1. The company says so

Uh, certainly so.  A contract depends on the consent of two parties.  If
I walk into a shop, take a bunch of things and just put down a note "I
took this and that and that, here is the money" on the counter together
with the cash because the shopkeeper is on the loo, it is theft, even
though it is likely that the shopkeeper will accept it post factum.  But
if, say, someone else takes the money, that is my problem and not that
of the shopkeeper.

If the company does _not_ say so, there is no license.

> 2. The company says so
> 3. The company says so
>
> It doesn’t matter that the EULA was 90 pages of indecipherable print
> that you clicked past without a glance.

We are not talking about the EULA.  We are talking about upgrade
licenses, marked and sold and priced explicitly as upgrade licenses for
preexisting full licenses, and then selling the old fully licensed
copies separately while continuing to use the "upgrades".  In short, we
are talking about retaining the status of a licensee while selling off
the licensed copies.

-- 
David Kastrup