Slashdot Mirror

I am not sure that this is relative. not long ago, tracing pattern for dresses were copied and traded. I don't recall the exact details but there was a big stink about it years ago. but at the end there is no copyright laws http://www.tabberone.com/Trademarks/CopyrightLaw/Patterns.shtml . I really don't know how this would be applied to a finished replicated design.

How has Psystar established this "agency relationship" with its customers?

They haven't, but they could in the future, simply by asking the customers to hire them to install Mac OS X (after the fact) on the computer they are purchasing.

Books can't be legitimately licensed either, by the way, and for the same reason. They can be leased, rented, contracted for, but they cannot be licensed through the ordinary retail sale process because no one needs a license to read a copy they own. That is what the First Sale Doctrine was all about:

http://www.tabberone.com/Trademarks/CopyrightLaw/FirstSaleDoctrine/FirstSale.shtml

And again, 117(a)(1) provides for adaptations "essential" to the use of a copyrighted work in conjunction with a machine, as long as it is down by the owner of the copy, or someone who is "authorized" by that owner. The alternative would be like saying you couldn't make modifications to your own car.

To have an Edge Monster?

how many of those items were NOT counterfeits, but merely real items that the trademark owner wants to illegitimately prevent from being legitimately resold?

Lots and lots. EBay, as they say, removes 100% of reported listings.

A hall of shame from someone who likes to countersue... or is it just sue.... or... take these companies to court, and win: http://www.tabberone.com/Trademarks/HallOfShame/HallOfShame.shtml

You're correct. I actually meant to cite Mirage Editions (which is mentioned in Lee v. ART), the other A.R.T. case.

There is a circuit split, where some follow Mirage and some follow Lee. I meant to cite Mirage, but got confused since they both implicate A.R.T. Co.

My apologies. Here is a link and citation to the case I meant to cite: Mirage Editions, Inc. v. Albuquerque A.R.T. Co., 856 F.2d 1341 (9th Cir. 1998). The relevant quote comes at the end of the case (facts were similar to Lee v. ART:

As we have previously concluded that appellant's tile-preparing process results in derivative works and as the exclusive right to prepare derivative works belongs to the copyright holder, the "first sale" doctrine does not bar the appellees' copyright infringement claims.

I remember that! I've just spent the last semester studying the properties of materials affecting conductivity, and my main conclusion has been... copper is pretty darn good for the price. Sure, there are some fancy things you can do like doping it with silver and the like, but the addition of most things will actually raise the resistivity of the alloy. For good hi-fi, all you need is pure copper, and I'd be very surprised if Monster has a patent on that.

By the way, this isn't the first time Monster Cables has used frivolous lawsuits to their advantage-- they also have a habit of suing anyone with the word "Monster" in their name:

http://www.tabberone.com/Trademarks/HallOfShame/MonsterCable/MonsterCable.shtml

In a unanimous ruling in Quality King Distributors Inc., v. L'anza Research International Inc. (1998, WL 9625) The Supreme Court found that the doctrine does apply to importation into the US of goods which were made in the US, then exported. This is significant for grey market imports of software, clothing and other goods, where the price outside the US may be lower than the price inside.

Anyone seriously interested in this issue should read about the crusades of Ebay seller Tabberone, who singlehandedly defeated many corporate DMCA abusers trying to maliciously end their auctions:

http://www.tabberone.com/Trademarks/OurFight.shtml

It's a wealth of information for the self litigator. ...

~ f