On 2/3/2011 11:24 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
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.
Caveat Emptor. You should'a bought a Cadillac. When you buy a car
from a company whose chief shareholder is the federal government, you
don't have to worry about those lawsuits. He. He.
Sincerely,
RJack :)
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
