>
>On Mon, 2001-10-29 at 09:40, Mark Ross wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Slightly off-topic. I received a SPAM for a PDA that is Palm-compatible,
>> >but it appears (to avoid licensing fees) you have to flash the PalmOS
>> >into the unit after you buy it!
>> >
>> >http://www.gtownebook.com/
>> >
>> >That's certainly one for the copyright lawyers, it can run the PalmOS,
>> >but it's not a licensee.
>>
>> This falls under the catagory of enabling enfringer. This is just as bad
>> and actionable as someone who infringes directly.
>
>Strong words. But fitting in today's intellectual property climate. Did
>you notice it ships with its own operating system, Pembex Version 1.3
>OS? Your interpretation is analogous to saying that shipping a computer
>with Linux is enabling infrining because that computer is Windows XP
>compatible!
>
>An analogy which is even stronger and still a legal practice is that you
>can ship a computer without an operating system.
>
>Regards,
>Adam
If by either advertising or by inference they suggest users download and
install the Palm OS, they would be liable for as an enabling infringer
since they are actively supporting and abetting such infringement. On
the other hand, if they do not suggest users (who are the actual
infringers in this case) flash the Palm OS onto the device, but rather
are just selling a device with a perfectly usable OS, then they have no
liability. Your suggestion that a Linux computer is infringing because
it can be used with Windows is only reasonable if the company that sells
it suggests doing so. If they do not, then only the users are stealing
software. The important point is how the company that makes a product
suggests its use.
Mark Ross
markross13_at_home.com
-- This is the Newtontalk mailinglist - http://www.newtontalk.net To unsubscribe or manage: visit the above link or mailto:newtontalk-request_at_newtontalk.net?Subject=unsubscribe
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Thu Nov 01 2001 - 10:02:49 EST