John Noble wrote (in response to my post):
> Your try was pretty good too, but "another copy" and "a machine" are both
> ambiguous.
Which I essentially admitted.
> Is it really one copy on one machine, or can you make more than
> one copy on more than one machine. You suggest that more than one copy on
> more than one machine is authorized -- as long as it's seriatum. But where
> did the seriatum part come from? -- I don't see it in the statute.
Because a "use in conjunction with a [singular] machine" is still possible at every point in time that you copy the protected material under this interpretation.
If you use the software on your laptop and your desktop simultaneously, the use is now in conjunction with more than one machine. This exposes the weakness of the baseball analogy. The command doesn't anticipate using the bat in conjunction with more than one baseball AT THE SAME TIME (although I'm sure the child would put up a reasonable defence of ambiguity ;-).
> Are you taking the position -- "one machine at a time" -- that the software
> cannot be loaded on both your desktop and your laptop except by license.
I consider this the most likely interpretation to be taken by a judge. "Loaded" is conveniently ambiguous also. If it means "active use" or simply "installed" is a little harder. Both of these and other interpretations are supportable, I just consider this the most likely. Received on Mon Oct 09 2000 - 07:46:39 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:41 GMT