Re: Pirated XP, means-test everyone and every product with "income

From: Ron Bogart (rip.unoTHE_at_CRAPearthlink.net)
Date: 01/26/05 

Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 20:50:36 -0800

In news:p1yJd.10762$CI6.10293@trnddc06,
Siles <siles.bazerman@nevershow.gte.net> did some thinking and came up with
these words:
> "Linda B" <someone@microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:eH147qxAFHA.4028@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>> That's very interesting -- is this posted online somewhere? Do you
>> happen to have a URL for the ruling?
>>
>> "Siles" <siles.bazerman@nevershow.gte.net> wrote in message
>> news:bLxJd.10761$CI6.3779@trnddc06...
>>> In the only case involving the EULA enforcement brought to Federal
>>> Court (Adobe vs Softman) Adobe lost big time. The Federal District
>>> Judge ruled that "Software is sold not licensed". In particular he
>>> referenced
>>> the doctrine of first sale which has been a mater of federal law since
>> somewhere
>>> about 1790. Before you argue with me about this read the entire 16
>>> pages
>> of
>>> the decision.
>>>
>>> Unless software is sold directly to the end user the
>>> manufacturer/producer/whatever has lost control over licensing. This
>>> still
>>> leaves software subject to copyright protections.
>>>
> A Google search of Adobe vs Softman will bring up about 400 hits.
> Most are discussion forums but the documents can be obtained at
> http://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/CACD/RecentPubOp.nsf/0/1c0109b1a49387b288256b48007a04cd?OpenDocument&Highlight=0,softman

Having read the entire 16 pages, I have to disagree that this even comes
close to applying to the discussion. It is based on SoftMan "Never"
installing the software therefore they are not bound by the EULA. Read and
comprehend the entire document instead of picking out the words that fit
your argument. 

-- 
Ron Bogart {}  τΏτ¬
Associate Expert
Expert Zone - www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone
"Life is what happens while we are making other plans."
Loading