From ec9cf5dd49ca58d8f652289eb83e5e62d6c71927 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Bradley M. Kuhn" Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2025 14:02:17 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] Cut paragraph that has only historical significance. This might belong in a long retrospective about the Best Buy case, but it's been a decade since anyone had this confusion (to my knowledge). --- conservancy/content/copyleft-compliance/past-lawsuits.html | 7 ------- 1 file changed, 7 deletions(-) diff --git a/conservancy/content/copyleft-compliance/past-lawsuits.html b/conservancy/content/copyleft-compliance/past-lawsuits.html index e1e2cc32..b479833d 100644 --- a/conservancy/content/copyleft-compliance/past-lawsuits.html +++ b/conservancy/content/copyleft-compliance/past-lawsuits.html @@ -79,11 +79,4 @@ the original complaint is on on all software included in the devices at issue in any lawsuit that we've filed.

-

One oft-stated confusion about this litigation was that we sued Best Buy - for sales of third-party devices in their stores. That is not - accurate. Best Buy had a house-brand DVD player under the - “Insignia” “house brand” that they produced as - their own product.

- - {% endblock %}