Do you know what "dicta" is?

 

While I see what your saying, their rulings are more important than why they ruled that way.

 

This isn't worth arguing guys... it's really not. It's already been stated that the tunes will not work on anyone else's cars. Ownership isn't really that important knowing that the buyer can't use the tunes anyway.

If anything it will reflect poorly on the seller for misinforming the buyer.

 

Well, t he never said out right that they would work, just that they would come with the purchase.

 

Dicta is the language in a court opinion that may not, and usually does not, have a direct impact or substantive basis for their ultimate ruling. Complex court cases cannot be summed up by culling one quote from the ruling. The legal profession likes to do that as a way of somewhat "indexing" the cases based on subject matter and what-not.

Here is a real-world example; I used to belong to a group called "Fathers for Equal Rights" and they had a couple hundred case cites that they used to buttress their arguments but their cases went nowhere. I joined the group and decided to review all their case cites. In doing so, I discovered that they were using dicta when the actual cases they were citing tended to be focusing on subject matter only slightly related to their legal theories.

I then reauthored the entire list of case cites and properly focused their uses. That group then had much more success and a greater understanding of how to use such case cites. They also learned what "dicta" was.

 

Of course it is; to those making the arguments and exchanging ideas. Nobody is bashing anyone here and we all enjoy the intellectual exercises. Much is learned through stringent use of the First Amendment.

 

Buy my table and I'll give you a free lamp. Never mind the fact that I cut the cord on the lamp. Point is that people will be tempted to buy based on the free gift, and in this case, IMO, the tune is worth more than the device. This makes the overall deal misleading because it's allowing him to inflate the device cost to a "new" price based on what's free.

 

I understand what your saying. Having said that, do you think that the two cases that have been quoted above or used in the proper context (going along with you example)

The two cases being Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus and Autodesk vs Verner. If you agree that these two cases are being used correctly to refute that once you sell software you still own it (aka the license or cd in this case) then I fail to see how the discussion of dicta adds anything to this conversation. If you don't agree, then please explain how they are being misused.

 

Ok, but there is nothing illegal about that.

Take lat night TV ads. A vast majority of those products are worthless and dont work as advertised. Yet despite people learning this time and time again, they still buy things sold in this manner. At this point its not the sellers fault, its the buyers for being stupid.

Price discussions also are really irrelevant to this discussion. Bottom line is he could try to sell the tune + device for a 1000, but someone has to be willing to pay it. A price is only inflated if he doesn't make a sale.

 

Very true, but in this case, the case I posted relates to the specific example. the case is in reference to the legality of selling "licensed" software due to the "owner" not actually being the software's owner.

The judge says that he's the owner because the company intended for him to keep it indefinitely, so that would be the basis of the ruling. Likewise, Jeff states that the data files are licensed, and not owned, and his service is intended to tune the car indefinitely, or until the patron needs more support, which would provide new files under the same presumption.

Now, Jeff can stipulate his level of service if the files change hands, but I don't think he can make an ownership claim since the files are intended for indefinite use. Simply put, only support original owners per "registration". Be it from an Access Port purchase, or directly from a tuning purchase. Support is non transferable.

 

Didn't he used to coach the Bears?

 

LMFAO...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Ditka

yep, very close sounding / spelling if you're not paying attention.

 

I explained the concept for those who may not be familiar.

If you have read the cases IN THEIR ENTIRETY, as opposed to the half-*** interpretations offered by most law schools (I have kicked the **** out of lawyers whom have attended many of the "elite" law schools in MI), then I will defer to your current expertise. Otherwise, I may get around to reading them myself and I will revisit the argument at another time.

 

Who would win in a fight between Ditka and God?



























































Trick question...Ditka is God

 

Well there is your problem right there.

You know what is better than winning Gold in the Special Olympics right?

























Not being Retreaded...(in case Sarah is watching....)

 

ROTFL, I already said before I posted even one comment in this thread that I am not a lawyer, so what makes you think I would be able to out gun you in an arguement over case law? In laymens terms, the ruling seem simple enough to me (desite the fact that our legal system is incredibly more complex than I realize)

I simply said to prove what your saying. You havent really disagreed with me, just said that I problably dont have full command of the issue. But, if you dont want to prove me wrong, I understand, people have lives other than trying to spend them to prove me wrong. But I guess as it stands, my thoughts on the matter havent changed and the evidence at present seems to agree with me and Red.

 

I think if you all just look at it as Jeff is licensing his tune to the car instead of the owner of the AP you will get further along.

 

Doesnt really matter either way.

 

If the license is to the car and not the driver it makes a big difference.

 

Basically, RC is arguing that you can't license stuff; That when you buy a device with software on it, you own the software and the device.
This is the same as saying that when you buy a record, you not only own the record, you also own the music.

Of course this is completely wrong and goes totally against the basis of copyright, but that probably doesn't matter since he has his opinion about this and its academic, anyway.

 

And while I would understand his argument if you wrote the OS/firmware for the AP. Yes...you can not stop someone from having that firmware to make that device run. However, the configuration settings that the AP inputs into the ECU of the RX8 is not required to make that device run/work. It is a file that you provide to the RX8 that is transferred through said device.

 

I just want to buy a god damned accessport ):

 

This is not any different then me providing code to help someone run their applications. I did not write the application but my code is running on top it to meet the customers needs. They can not turn around and sell my code to someone else that is running the same software.

 

http://www.mazdamaniac.com/cobb/accessport.htm

 

well stop being a cheap skate and pony up the asking price