At the risk of extending an O/T discussion one more time...........
>
>> 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.
>
>So no user can have a legitimate copy of the Palm OS?
Only users who have paid for this (by purchasing a Palm OS licensed
device which is the only way I know of to get a license to use it) would
be legit. If they download it to copy onto a device that did not pay a
license to use it, that is stealing.
>So no user can have a legitimate copy of Windows XP either Mark?
If you pay for it, fine. If you don't, its not. This isn't hard.
>To give you another analogy, if a computer was sold with Linux and it
>was advertised that it was Windows XP compatible ("you can also install
>Windows XP") that be supporting infringment? You forget that someone may
>have a _license_ to be able to install Windows. The inference is that
>the consumer can install Windows XP if they have a valid license to do
>so.
As long as they pay for the license, no problem, as before.
>You're diminishing your user rights by making generous interpretations
>on behalf of software vendors. I'd rather give users the benefit of the
>doubt.
The problem that you originally posed is really about manufacturers of
hardware and their ability to encourage users to pirate software. Since
manufacturers have deep pockets, they are far more likely to face the
wrath of a corporate legal dept than users.
>I don't know whether you can buy the PalmOS separately. But how about if
>your Palm is broken? Would you like to be able to buy a clone to
>transfer the software into? You legitimately purchased it all.
If you purchase a clone that has paid for the rights to the Palm OS, you
effectively have a "label license" to use the software. You can then
freely download, install or whatever (eat for lunch) the software because
you, by virtue of paying for the hardware that came with a license, paid
for it.
>> The important point is how the company that makes a product
>> suggests its use.
>
>The advert states "* PalmOS Compatible * You need to flash the PalmOS to
>use software utilities written for Palm."
This last sentence is quite troubling. If indeed, the hardware does not
carry a license from Palm to install the Palm OS, this sounds like
suggesting and enabling infringement. Palm, Inc. has the right to sell
and protect its software from those who don't pay for it, just like
someone who photocopies an entire book can be sued for copyright
infringement. If you enable infringement, you can also be liable. I
suspect this sentence on their web site will attract the Palm legal
department.
>Do we disagree with the statement that the device is "PalmOS
>Compatible"? That is just providing consumers with valuable information.
>What about the statement "You need to flash the PalmOS to use software
>utilities written for Palm."? Well that can be read as a warning to
>consumers that the unit will not work with existing Palm applications.
See above.
>If the Pembex Version 1.3 OS doesn't contain a "Console, Money, ToDo,
>DirectSync, etc." then perhaps this is misleading and deceptive
>advertising (possibly alongside a copyright infringment offence).
If they advertise capabilities that CAN ONLY be obtained by an illegal
copy and install of Palm's proprietary software, then they, as you
suggest, are guilty of both enabling infringement and misleading the
public by selling goods that do not work as advertised without an illegal
copy of someone else's work. That is a real, damaging situation for this
company if it can be proved.
>Regards,
>Adam
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