David Kastrup wrote: > > Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > David Kastrup wrote: > > [...] > >> Software is not sold. > > > > http://cryptome.org/softman-v-adobe.htm > > You are confusing software and media.
I'm confusing nothing, stupid dak. Man oh man. *DAK* Indus., retard dak. Can *you* grok the meaning of "software units" and "transferred 20,000 copies in the single tangible copy"? I wrote (starting with softman-v-adobe snippet referring to DAK case followed by stuff from Nimmer about DAK case): [...] The court found that the agreement was best characterized as a lump sum sale of software units to DAK ------ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ http://www.law.berkeley.edu/journals/btlj/articles/vol13/Nimmer/html/text.html#B21 ------ Similarly, a software vendor may contractually allow use by a single user of a copy of "Windows NT" and, in a separate transaction, deliver a copy of "Windows NT" under a license allowing the licensee to use the software in a 10,000 site network or allowing it to make 20,000 additional copies for commercial distribution. In the latter case, the provider, in effect, transferred 20,000 copies in the single tangible copy.21 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^ ------ http://www.law.berkeley.edu/journals/btlj/articles/vol13/Nimmer/html/note.html#N21 ------ 21. See Microsoft Corp. v. DAK Indus., Inc., 66 F.3d 1091, 1095 (9th Cir. 1995) (concluding that a distribution agreement involving a lump sum payment and delivery of a master disk is more like a sale of the right to make the stated number of copies ------ regards, alexander. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
