Merijn de Weerd wrote: [...] > Therefore under German law, once I accept the GPL terms, I have > a right to redistribute GPL-licensed software. However, I can > protest unreasonable or illegal terms in the contract
Not according to Welte's friends at ifross/jbb (Jaeger & Co. gang). Because, they explain, it would amount to "expropriation of the author" and that "is not a lawful option"!!! Oh poor moronized district court in Frankfurt. http://www.cebit.de/newsanzeige_e.html?news=26474 ------- D-Link, which already back in 2004 had had a run-in about a router with gpl-violations.org, argued that the GPL violated antitrust law because it featured a price fixing provision and imposed upon the licensee conditions affecting his/her/its contracts with third parties. These arguments the judges found to be irrelevant: If the GPL as a whole violated antitrust law, they observed, then any right of use to GPL-protected software would be null and void. Thus in plain English: Availing oneself of the rights granted by the GPL license while failing to recognize the duties attendant thereon a state of affairs that Mr. Jaeger called the "expropriation of the author" is not a lawful option. ------- Now visit http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise15.html (II.K. Misuse Of Copyright) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Here's more http://www.techlawjournal.com/topstories/2003/20030826.asp (3rd Circuit Breaks New Ground on Copyright Misuse) ------- Holding in Video Pipeline. The Court noted that misuse "exists where the patent or copyright holder has engaged in some form of anti- competitive behavior." But, it went on to state that "More on point, however, is the underlying policy rationale for the misuse doctrine set out in the Constitution's Copyright and Patent Clause ... Put simply, our Constitution emphasizes the purpose and value of copyrights and patents. Harm caused by their misuse undermines their usefulness." The Court reasoned that the underlying Constitutional purpose can be undermined, not only by anticompetitive licensing terms ... With respect to competition, the Court wrote that "Anti-competitive licensing agreements may conflict with the purpose behind a copyright's protection by depriving the public of the would-be competitor's creativity." ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ [...] The Court also made some other significant statements about the defense of misuse. It wrote that "Misuse is not cause to invalidate the copyright or patent, but instead ``precludes its enforcement during the period of misuse.''" (Citing Practice Management.) Moreover, the Court wrote that "To defend on misuse grounds, the alleged infringer need not be subject to the purported misuse." ------- And now here's what judge Tinder held in Wallace v. FSF (that was before he got GPL-moronized and dismissed the case on standing/jurisdictional ground with atterly moronic dicta quoting from "Heil GPL!" (so to speak) whitepaper from another GPL co- conspirator at MontaVista). Tinder found that "Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint States a Claim Upon Which Relief" can be Granted and that "Plaintiff's Allegations Sufficiently Set Forth a Violation of the Rule of Reason". He ruled: "To establish a Section 1 claim under the rule of reason test, a plaintiff must prove that "(1) that the defendants contracted, combined, or conspired among each other; (2) that the combination or conspiracy produced adverse, anti-competitive effects within relevant product and geographic markets; (3) that the objects of and the conduct pursuant to that contract or conspiracy were illegal; and (4) that the plaintiffs were injured as a proximate result of that conspiracy." Tunis Bros. Co. v. Ford Motor Co., 952 F.2d 715, 722 (3d Cir. 1991). In this case, it appears that Mr. Wallace has made the necessary allegations of FSF's unlawful contract and conduct. In his Third Amended Complaint, he specifically alleges that FSF conspired with others, including International Business Machines Corporation, Red Hat Inc. and Novell Inc., to control the price of available software within a defined market through the GPL. Primarily at issue in FSF's motion is whether Mr. Wallace has adequately alleged that the GPL had a resulting anticompetitive effect. [... reduction in IP output under GPL price-dumping conspiracy ...] This may be considered anticompetitive effect, and it certainly can be inferred from what Mr. Wallace alleges in his Third Amended Complaint. Therefore, this court finds that the Third Amended Complaint states a claim for violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, under the rule of reason doctrine." regards, alexander. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
