|
From: | Rjack |
Subject: | Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar |
Date: | Mon, 23 Feb 2009 20:41:01 -0500 |
User-agent: | Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Windows/20081209) |
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
Rjack <user@example.net> writes:"A copyright is a right against the world. Contracts, by contrast, generally affect only their parties......The GPL is a contract... As such it involves rights "in rem" that affects all persons. Congress forbid this kind of copyright control...[ various other arguments omitted ]Here's the big problem with all these arguments: None of the defendants seem to be making them.
Of course they don't make them! They know that a Rule 41 voluntary dismissal by the plaintiffs will be coming in short order (check the track record of the SFLC). So why is this a problem with my arguments? Just because my arguments are never required doesn't make them less than true or effective. The SFLC will NEVER, NEVER voluntarily allow a federal judge to interpret the GPL on its merits -- even if they must dismiss their clients case WITH PREJUDICE. Sincerely, Rjack :)
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |