Tabberone is pronounced tab ber won not tay ber own

Tabbers Temptations     www.tabberone.com/Trademarks/ Home | Site Index | Disclaimer | Email Me! "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" Edmund Burke

The Tabberone™ Archives These articles concern what we consider major trademark and copyright issues. They are usually reproduced with the original source referenced. Bear in mind, these articles are copyrighted and commercial use without permission of the authors may be considered infringement. The intended use here is educational, commentary and non-commercial. The reason they are reproduced in the Tabberone™ Archives, as opposed to just providing a link, is because links disappear and pages are removed. That presents a messy confirmation process that is annoying to the browser (you) but also presents a credibility issue. We do not claim any rights in these pieces. Do not regard the absence of a copyright statement or © to mean the article is not copyrighted. Some sites do not have a copyright statement. When an article or a comment is posted on the internet by the copyright owner, the owner is seeking a world-wide, 24/7 audience; sometimes for a limited amount of time, sometimes indefinitely. In essence, an internet posting intentionally relinquishes one's copyright for exclusivity because the owner has posted it on the internet to been seen by everyone, everywhere. The Tabberone™ Archives non-commercial duplication of the posting is simply a continuance of the original wishes of the copyright owner. We post these articles for reference, for commentary and for confirmarion of our position.

Source: http://www.osnews.com/story/22270/Judge_Sides_with_Vernor_Slams_Autodesk December 10, 2009 - content has not been altered

Judge Sides with Vernor, Slams Autodesk posted by Thom Holwerda on Thu 1st Oct 2009 19:04 UTC IconYesterday morning, we ran an item on the Autodesk case, but we (as in: me) got all confused about what exactly was going on. As it turns out, I was right from the start; despite my update to the item, the case was not resolved. The link in the update referred to an earlier stage of the legal ramblings. However, we now have a real conclusion in this case - and once again, Autodesk lost: software is sold, not licensed. Note: Thanks to Brian W. Carver from Cyberlaw Cases for clearing everything up via email. Much appreciated! What took place Tuesday was a hearing on the summary judgement motion. Here, parties put forward the undisputed facts, after which it is the judge's job to apply the law on those undisputed facts (thanks for the explanation, Brian). The judge can then side with either of the two parties, or, if the judge believes there are still disputed material facts, let it go to trial. After hearing the undisputed facts, judge Richard A. Jones has sided with Vernor, more or less slapping Autodesk on the wrist. Judge Jones points to both the First Sale Doctrine and the Reproduction Exception. The first Sale Doctrine dictates that owners of copyrighted material may resell this material, despite the monopoly copyright holders have over said material. The Reproduction Exception states that owners of software may make any copies necessary to use the program. Without the latter, you would be unable to run software without breaking copyright law. The judge further states the Vernor is indeed the owner of the copies of the AutoCAD software he was selling on eBay. The judge obviously reiterated that while Autodesk owns the copyright to AutoCAD, Vernor owns the copies. The judge also addressed some of the concerns raised by Autodesk about what would happen if Autodesk lost. "Autodesk's suggestion that consumers will be harmed by rising retail prices if software producers compensate for the resale market does not address the concomitant price benefit in the form of reduced resale prices," the judge writes, "Although Autodesk would no doubt prefer that consumers' money reaches its pockets, that preference is not a basis for policy." Autodesk also claimed that Vernor's actions constitute piracy. The judge found this claim "unconvincing". "Mr. Vernor's sales of AutoCAD packages promote piracy no more so than Autodesk's sales of the same packages," the judge states, "Piracy depends on the number of people willing to engage in piracy, and a pirate is presumably just as happy to unlawfully duplicate software purchased directly from Autodesk as he is to copy software purchased from a reseller like Mr. Vernor." Autodesk can still appeal the case, but with yet another slam-dunk loss in court, it might just be that they're going to give up. © 1997-2009 OSNews LLC. All Rights Reserved.