Re: [License-discuss] Essential step defense and first sale

Plus, you’re not even doing it right. You’re excluding the most relevant case, more recent than the cases you cite, from the highest court in the US: But as already explained, we have always drawn the boundaries of the exhaustion doctrine to exclude that Activity [reproduction], so that the pa

Re: [License-discuss] Essential step defense and first sale

No matter how long you beat your drum, or under how many email aliases and pseudonyms, no one is buying your arguments here or on any other list. Pam Pamela S. Chestek Chestek Legal PO Box 2492 Raleigh, NC 27602 919-800-8033 pam...@chesteklegal.com www.chesteklegal.com On 7/17/2019 11:32 PM, Ale

Re: [License-discuss] Essential step defense and first sale

See, e.g., SoftMan Prods. Co. v. Adobe Sys. Inc., 171 F. Supp. 2d 1075, 1083 (C.D. Cal. 2001). https://www.linuxjournal.com/files/linuxjournal.com/linuxjournal/articles/056/5628/softman-v-adobe.html I've collected most relevant stuff here: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/gnu.misc.discuss/jd7DiF

Re: [License-discuss] Essential step defense and first sale

http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20090922030639824 "... And look at a comment submitted , according to Terekhov, by Hollaar to the FSF during the rewriting of the GPLv3: This is not a correct statement of copyright l

Re: [License-discuss] Essential step defense and first sale

Take this: https://www.winston.com/en/where-we-are/north-america/silicon-valley.html#!/en/thought-leadership/supreme-court-holds-that-patent-exhaustion-applies-to-all-sales.html?aj=ov&parent=6585&idx=1 "In yet another rebuke to the Federal Circuit, the U.S. Supreme Court held yesterday in Impress