RJack wrote: [...] > All this ruling really says, is that Hoops as a counter-claimant has the > status of a plaintiff (not defendant) and carries the burden of proof > and must plead facts to establish ownership of the copies in order to > defeat a Motion to Dismiss.
I disagree. The court ruled: "Hoops avers that it resold Adobe products it purchased from third party intermediary distributors, Hoops Countercl. ¶ 8, but offers no facts regarding under what terms these distributors obtained the copies." Some time ago I bought a BMW car from a nearby dealer. The car includes tons of software and I even patched some of it (navigation computer software originating from http://www.navteq.com/ GPS stuff). Patching aside, I have no idea regarding "what terms these distributors obtained the copies" of the software in my BMW car. And now I'm being told that I can not sell my BMW car without permission from bmw.com if I live in California... Luckily I don't live in the Ninth Circuit... regards, alexander. -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
