Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar

[Rjack]

Rahul Dhesi wrote:
> Rjack <user@example.net> writes:
>
> > That's not even wrong -- the SFLC raises the existence of the 
> > GPL license in their Complaint. The defendant need not claim 
> > compliance or for that matter need plead *anything*:
>
> > "Copyright disputes involving only the scope of the alleged 
> > infringer's license present the court with a question that 
> > essentially is one of contract: whether the parties' license 
> > agreement encompasses the defendant's activities. Just as in an
> >  ordinary contract action, the party claiming a breach carries 
> > the burden of persuasion."; BOURNE v. WALT DISNEY CO. 68 F.3d 
> > 621 (1995)
>
> There is no need for the plaintiff to show a breach unless 
> somebody has shown that a contract formed in the first place. So 
> at the very least, the defendant has to argue that a contract 
> formed; else it's a simple copyright infringement case.

The plaintiff pleaded the existence of the license, so the burden is
on the plaintiff to show a violation of its scope. If the plaintiff
wants to argue "no contract formation" as a basis for a scope
violation it is no less his burden to do so.

> And by the way, were you not able to find a suitable case on the 
> public Internet? Is there a shortage of publicly accessible cases
> that support your arguments?

Ever hear of big brick or granite buildings known as "law
libraries"? They're real handy if you wish to argue legal issues.
Google will surely help find the one nearest you and even provide a
map to its location.

Sincerely,
Rjack :)