Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 12th Oct 2009 18:25 UTC
Legal Now that all the nastiness of the discovery phase is behind us in the Apple vs. Psystar case, both parties are trying to get the case settled before it goes to court, much like the recent Vernor vs. Autodesk case. Both Apple and Psystar have filed motions asking for a summary judgement.
Permalink for comment 388956
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Groklaw and RMS
by rhavyn on Tue 13th Oct 2009 01:34 UTC in reply to "Groklaw and RMS"
Member since:

Heh, even RMS himself disagrees with PJ, as he argues the first sale doctrine is a good thing. If the foremost GPL advocate says first sale is important, then you can see where people like me are coming from when we say PJ's lost it when she argues first sale is dangerous for the GPL.

And lets look at Mr. Stallman's CV ...

Stallman graduated from Harvard in 1974 with a BA in physics. During his college years, he also worked as a staff hacker at the MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab, learning operating system development by doing it. He wrote the first extensible Emacs text editor there in 1975. He also developed the AI technique of dependency-directed backtracking, also known as truth maintenance. In January 1984 he resigned from MIT to start the GNU project.

Nope, no JD there. Now, let's here from Raymond Nimmer

Dean, University of Houston Law Center
Distinguished Chair in Residence, UCP

Raymond Nimmer is the Dean and Leonard Childs Professor of Law at the University of Houston Law Center and co-director of the Houston Intellectual Property and Information Law Institute. He is the author of over twenty books and numerous articles, his most recently published books are Modern Licensing Law (2008, West Publishing), The Law of Electronic Commercial Transactions (Pratt & Sons, 2003) and The Law of Computer Technology (4th edition, West 2009).

Who says in his declaration in Vernor v Autodesk (

20. Software licenses apply to billions of dollars of commerce. The entire software industry reflects this, including those parts of the industry that distribute "free" or "open-source" software and rely on terms that limit the licensee's right to redistribute the copyrighted work. Indeed, while a ruling that a delivery of a copy of software is a sale of the copy would seriously injure the software industry, it would also eviscerate open-source software which, for many companies, involves delivery of copies subject to restrictions that allow its redistribution only under stated conditions.

So Thom, let's see an article (hell, a comment would do) showing why Nimmer's analysis is incorrect. Maybe site an authority who actually has a JD while you're at it.

Reply Parent Score: 0