Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar

[Rjack]

David Kastrup wrote:
> Rjack <user@example.net> writes:
>
> > David Kastrup wrote:
> >
> > > Also there is no "evasion of an interpretation of the GPL" 
> > > since the GPL is not even under dispute.  It would only be 
> > > under dispute if the defendants claimed compliance as a 
> > > defense. The cases up to now have been cut&dry sufficiently 
> > > for that not to be a viable option.
> > >
> > > So even if the SFLC carried on, they'd get an interpretation 
> > > of the validity of copyright law in general rather than of 
> > > the GPL. Nothing interesting in that.
> > Would the GPL be construed as a contract and interpreted under 
> > state law?
>
> Do you even read what you are replying to?  If the defendant does
>  not claim compliance, the GPL is not relevant to the case.

That's not even wrong -- the SFLC raises the existence of the GPL
license in their Complaint. The defendant need not claim compliance
or for that matter need plead *anything*:

"Copyright disputes involving only the scope of the alleged
infringer's license present the court with a question that
essentially is one of contract: whether the parties' license
agreement encompasses the defendant's activities. Just as in an
ordinary contract action, the party claiming a breach carries the
burden of persuasion."; BOURNE v. WALT DISNEY CO. 68 F.3d 621 (1995)

Sincerely,
Rjack :)