Mentec US is gone! - DEC

This is a discussion on Mentec US is gone! - DEC ; On 19 Dec 2006 23:11:06 GMT, bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote: >In article , > Mike Ross writes: >> That's not what I said. In Germany, for instance, licenses which >> purport to interfere in your right to sell (or give ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst ... 8 9 10
Results 181 to 187 of 187

Thread: Mentec US is gone!

  1. Re: Mentec US is gone!

    On 19 Dec 2006 23:11:06 GMT, bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:

    >In article <16lgo219jf05smcofmjdc1ftu9lqokgsd6@4ax.com>,
    > Mike Ross writes:




    >> That's not what I said. In Germany, for instance, licenses which
    >> purport to interfere in your right to sell (or give away) what you've
    >> bought are not enforcible. MS found that out the hard way when they
    >> sued a guy who was re-selling Windows, and lost:

    >
    >Well, I think you are cofusing things here. You never buy RSTS. You
    >pay for permission to run it. Nothing more. It is exactly the same in
    >Germany as it is here. I have no doubt you could buy RSTS Licenses and
    >then resell them either in Germany or here. heck, we have people right
    >now involved inthis discussion who have openly announced that they do
    >it all the time. But that doesn't mean that because you acquired a
    >copy of the software you also acquired the rights to use it. The person
    >you acquired it from very likely did not have the right to pass on his
    >license without the paymeny of a re-licensing fee.
    >
    >>
    >> "A German appeals court recently ruled that Microsoft can't control
    >> how people sell its software. Apparently an "author" like Microsoft
    >> only gets to exercise its rights of authorship once, meaning they
    >> can't stop people who legally own their software from reselling it,
    >> even if the software is marked "for sale with a new PC only."

    >
    >Apples and oranges. The man involved "bought" the software. RSTS is
    >not for sale in any case. It is licensed for use and the EU would
    >undoubtedly support it as that is how most real computer software is
    >handled.


    I'm briefly resurrecting this old thread because an interesting and relevant
    case has just come up. From:

    http://www.channelregister.co.uk/200...todesk_ruling/

    "More than two years ago, Timothy Vernor walked into a "garage sale" and
    stumbled onto a copy of AutoCAD, a professional design tool with a price tag
    topping $4,000. He bought it on the cheap and promptly chucked it onto Happy
    Hour Comics, the eBay-driven online store where he typically sells
    comics-related collectibles and vintage toys.

    But Autodesk didn't like that. The software seller fired a DMCA (Digital
    Millennium Copyright Act) claim at eBay, ordering the removal of Vernor's
    AutoCAD auction. eBay complied. But Vernor fought back, issuing a counter-claim,
    and in the end, Autodesk let the auction stand.

    But then Vernor's CAD dowsing talents kicked into high gear. He nabbed four more
    copies of AutoCAD when a local architectural firm held another "garage sale."
    Naturally, he listed these on eBay as well, and in this case, Autodesk stuck to
    its DMCA guns. The company kept countering Vernor's counter-claims, and per site
    policy, eBay suspended his account.

    That's when Vernor filed his $10m lawyer-less lawsuit.

    Under the US Copyright Act, you can't sell duplicates of a copyrighted product.
    But you can sell the original, thanks to the so-called "first sale doctrine".
    And Vernor argues he was selling originals.

    Meanwhile, Autodesk insists that the first sale doctrine doesn't apply because
    it doesn't actually sell software. The company claims it merely licenses
    software. Its licenses are "nontransferable," the argument goes, so it has every
    right to spike Vernor's auctions with the DMCA.

    But Judge Jones doesn't buy that. "Mr. Vernor may...invoke the first sale
    doctrine," Wednesday's ruling says, "and his resale of the AutoCAD packages is
    not a copyright violation."



    More on this story elsewhere:
    http://aecnews.com/news/2008/05/21/3414.aspx
    http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?...95233&from=rss

    That's interesting, and in accord with what I (and a German court) have
    previously said, especially about the 'first sale doctrine'.

    Having re-lit the blue touch paper on this debate, I'm now going to retire from
    the field; I fly to the UK tonight to complete the move of the remaining part of
    the corestore collection (several tons of pdp, and quite a lot of software ;-) )
    to the USA! :-)

    Mike
    --
    http://www.corestore.org
    'As I walk along these shores
    I am the history within'

  2. Re: Mentec US is gone!

    Mike Ross writes:

    > Having re-lit the blue touch paper on this debate, I'm now going to retire
    > from the field; I fly to the UK tonight to complete the move of the remaining
    > part of the corestore collection (several tons of pdp, and quite a lot of
    > software ;-) ) to the USA! :-)


    Bon voyage! Your collection won't know what to do in that dry climate you're
    moving it to!

    --
    Rich Alderson "You get what anybody gets. You get a lifetime."
    news@alderson.users.panix.com --Death, of the Endless

  3. Re: Mentec US is gone!

    In article , Rich Alderson writes:
    >
    > Bon voyage! Your collection won't know what to do in that dry climate you're
    > moving it to!
    >


    Going back to the original subject of this thread, what is the current
    situation with Mentec and it's PDP-11 operations ?

    Are they still in business and accepting new business, or only dealing with
    existing customers or are they out of business completely ?

    Just curious,

    Simon.

    --
    Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
    Microsoft: Bringing you 1980's technology to a 21st century world

  4. Re: Mentec US is gone!

    On 23 May 2008 14:55:57 -0400, Rich Alderson
    wrote:

    >Mike Ross writes:
    >
    >> Having re-lit the blue touch paper on this debate, I'm now going to retire
    >> from the field; I fly to the UK tonight to complete the move of the remaining
    >> part of the corestore collection (several tons of pdp, and quite a lot of
    >> software ;-) ) to the USA! :-)

    >
    >Bon voyage! Your collection won't know what to do in that dry climate you're
    >moving it to!


    The move went well - well, so far - it'll be at least a couple of weeks until it
    shows up in NY:

    http://www.corestore.org/coremove.htm

    Mike
    --
    http://www.corestore.org
    'As I walk along these shores
    I am the history within'

  5. Re: Mentec US is gone!

    On Fri, 23 May 2008 07:58:18 -0400, Mike Ross wrote:


    >More on this story elsewhere:
    >http://aecnews.com/news/2008/05/21/3414.aspx
    >http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?...95233&from=rss
    >
    >That's interesting, and in accord with what I (and a German court) have
    >previously said, especially about the 'first sale doctrine'.


    Following myself up to bring you this.. the EFF have a page which describes the
    case very succinctly:

    http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/05...-software-was-

    "...Vernor (with the able assistance of Public Citizen attorney Greg Beck) asked
    the court to declare that his activity was legal under the first sale doctrine.
    Autodesk predictably responded by insisting that AutoCAD is licensed, not sold.
    Nonsense, said the court -- Autodesk may have called the transfer a license, but
    it didn't look much like one. For example, the license didn't require consumers
    to return the software when they were done with it, nor to make ongoing payments
    for continued use. Thus, the "license" might put some restrictions on use, but
    those restrictions did not void the first sale doctrine."

    Which is pretty much exactly the same argument I've made here on more than one
    occasion WRT running 'old' copies of pdp-11 software acquired along with the
    pdp-11 the former owner had been running it on... even down to the 'looks like a
    duck..' language!

    Unless this case is appealed successfully, I'd tentatively regard this as a
    green light to legally run *lawfully-acquired previously-owned* copies of pdp-11
    OSes.

    Mike
    --
    http://www.corestore.org
    'As I walk along these shores
    I am the history within'

  6. Re: Mentec US is gone!

    Mike Ross skrev:
    > On Fri, 23 May 2008 07:58:18 -0400, Mike Ross wrote:
    >
    >
    >> More on this story elsewhere:
    >> http://aecnews.com/news/2008/05/21/3414.aspx
    >> http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?...95233&from=rss
    >>
    >> That's interesting, and in accord with what I (and a German court) have
    >> previously said, especially about the 'first sale doctrine'.

    >
    > Following myself up to bring you this.. the EFF have a page which describes the
    > case very succinctly:
    >
    > http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/05...-software-was-
    >
    > "...Vernor (with the able assistance of Public Citizen attorney Greg Beck) asked
    > the court to declare that his activity was legal under the first sale doctrine.
    > Autodesk predictably responded by insisting that AutoCAD is licensed, not sold.
    > Nonsense, said the court -- Autodesk may have called the transfer a license, but
    > it didn't look much like one. For example, the license didn't require consumers
    > to return the software when they were done with it, nor to make ongoing payments
    > for continued use. Thus, the "license" might put some restrictions on use, but
    > those restrictions did not void the first sale doctrine."
    >
    > Which is pretty much exactly the same argument I've made here on more than one
    > occasion WRT running 'old' copies of pdp-11 software acquired along with the
    > pdp-11 the former owner had been running it on... even down to the 'looks like a
    > duck..' language!
    >
    > Unless this case is appealed successfully, I'd tentatively regard this as a
    > green light to legally run *lawfully-acquired previously-owned* copies of pdp-11
    > OSes.


    I don't think anyone here have ever denied you the right to make your own
    interpretations on anything. :-)
    We might not agree with you, but that can hardly affect you, can it?
    Our interpretations only affect how we handle it. After all, we are all
    individuals, who all only can take responsibility for our own actions.

    But yes, it is always interesting to hear other peoples interpretations. But in
    the end, I won't take any decisions with the only reason being "nn said so". For
    all I know, if your opinion have been the same the whole time, you might as well
    have been acting upon that interpretation the whole time. It don't seem like
    anything have changed for you with this last piece of information.

    Or is it really a case of you not wanting to do this alone? That you want others
    to be part, so in case a court decides you're wrong you'll have accomplices?
    (Said half in jest.)

    I hope you don't take offence from what I write. It's not meant in any mean way.
    In a way, this whole thing is a storm in a waterglass. After all, noone here can
    prevent anyone else from doing as they see fit and appropriate. And I for one,
    is not even a part on either side, if it should turn into a case. So I have no
    vested interests here...

    Johnny

    --
    Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
    || on a psychedelic trip
    email: bqt@softjar.se || Reading murder books
    pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol

  7. Re: Mentec US is gone!



    On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 09:19:00 +0200, Johnny Billquist wrote:

    >Mike Ross skrev:
    >> On Fri, 23 May 2008 07:58:18 -0400, Mike Ross wrote:


    >> "...Vernor (with the able assistance of Public Citizen attorney Greg Beck) asked
    >> the court to declare that his activity was legal under the first sale doctrine.
    >> Autodesk predictably responded by insisting that AutoCAD is licensed, not sold.
    >> Nonsense, said the court -- Autodesk may have called the transfer a license, but
    >> it didn't look much like one. For example, the license didn't require consumers
    >> to return the software when they were done with it, nor to make ongoing payments
    >> for continued use. Thus, the "license" might put some restrictions on use, but
    >> those restrictions did not void the first sale doctrine."


    >But yes, it is always interesting to hear other peoples interpretations. But in
    >the end, I won't take any decisions with the only reason being "nn said so".


    I would tend to agree with you. Although the words of 'nn' will carry more
    weight with me if they are a guru or wizard. And *considerably* more weight if
    they are a judge, talking about the law, as in this case...

    Mike
    --
    http://www.corestore.org
    'As I walk along these shores
    I am the history within'

+ Reply to Thread
Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst ... 8 9 10