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

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:

> 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."

Red herring, since Autodesk did not complain about the physical copies
being reused (like broken into pieces and used in an artwork) but their
content being used in multiple installations while just a single license
had been granted, this license being used both as a prerequisite for the
upgraded installations as well as a recipient license for the resold
physical media.

In a similar vein, if the license grants a recipient to make backup
copies, he is not free to resell these copies to people wanting to
install the same software.

First sales right apply only if you don't retain any use of the license
you pass on.

-- 
David Kastrup