View Single Post
Old 02-17-2010, 05:52 PM   #107
Shaggy
Wizard
Shaggy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Shaggy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Shaggy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Shaggy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Shaggy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Shaggy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Shaggy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Shaggy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Shaggy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Shaggy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Shaggy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Shaggy's Avatar
 
Posts: 4,293
Karma: 529619
Join Date: May 2007
Device: iRex iLiad, DR800SG
Quote:
Originally Posted by DawnFalcon View Post
If you look at the actual rulings involved in the argument, under them you do not "own" any computer file on which IP is present as long as there is any form of secondary licence such as a liscence agreement, ToS or EULA. You are merely licensing it with conditions - this also follows from Blizzard vs BNetD...
That's not what the rulings say. Please back that up with references from the ruling itself.

The ruling references other cases which set precedents for specific tests to determine ownership vs license. This ruling is only saying that, in this case, they did not meet those tests. The actual quotes from the ruling in my previous post explicitly state this.

Last edited by Shaggy; 02-17-2010 at 06:05 PM.
Shaggy is offline   Reply With Quote