Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar

[Alan Mackenzie]

'ten Tag, Peter!

In gnu.misc.discuss Peter K?hlmann <peter.koehlmann@arcor.de> wrote:
> Alan Mackenzie wrote:


> < snip > 

>>>> But then, you're familiar with the details.  Is there any evidence in
>>>> this case that this dismissal has allowed the defendant (Verizon) to
>>>> continue infringing the GPL?
 
>>> Read on what "res judicata" means...
 
>> Is there any evidence in this case that this dismissal has allowed the
>> defendant (Verizon) to continue infringing the GPL?  Just thought you
>> might know the answer to that question.  It's the main point in this
>> sub-thread.  If you don't know, that's fine.
 

> He knows. That is the reason he bypasses actually answering the question

I only noticed today that he's posting from a .de address.  I didn't
think there were people like that in Germany - I've not met any others
like him, here.  I'm thoroughly disillusioned now.  ;-)

> He knows just too well that Verizon is actually in compliance now, and for 
> that reason can distribute the binaries.

Yes, I've kind of gathered that.

> There has never been a case where a company distributing GPLed software 
> continued to do so without coming into compliance when the FSS (or for 
> example H. Welte in germany) went to court.

Yes.  That guy deserves an award!

> The GPL is *very* enforcible, and all the idiocy from the likes of Rjack 
> or A.Terekhov will not change that fact

All the idiocy?  There's not actually very much of it, just that it gets
repeated ad nauseam.  ;-)

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).