Talk:Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Accounting

What I would like to understand is how the accounting of such licenses is counted? If Autodesk claims that the license is never transferred then are they paying taxes on thoses assets? I am sure that individuals are depreciating the initial purchase costs and Autodesk is paying taxes on the revenue but shouldn't they be required to pay the taxes on their assets?

Sources

A lot of the article discusses the ruling and the meaning of the ruling based on primary sources. For example the "Conflicting precendents" and "Implications" sections need this. We need to start digging out some reliable sources that talk about this. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 17:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

POV

This article reads like a public relations stunt by EFF or some other group that seeks to overturn the 9th Circuit's decision in Congress or the Supreme Court. I am personally a big fan of EFF and their work but I think this is a misuse of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.214.163 (talk) 20:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:14, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ninth circuit case

I am surprised this article is labeled as a Western District of Washington case when there is no corresponding article for the Ninth Circuit appeal and the article gives equal treatment to the lower court and the Ninth Circuit opinion. In my opinion these two articles should be separated or this one should be renamed and reindexed as a Ninth Circuit decision. Smerdyakov911 (talk) 16:45, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]