[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;)

From: Alexander Terekhov
Subject: Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;)
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 14:34:52 +0200

"Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote:
>    And you just keep misinterpreting his case and persistently fail to
>    address his arguments.
> We all are misinterpreting his case, including the judges.

Judges can err. Well, Judge Tinder actually performed not entirely bad 
before he got drunk. As for you, stupid ams, I'm still waiting for 
the chapter and verse from the copyright act about copyright licenses 
not being contracts. In the mean time, take this:

An intellectual property license is a contract. In re: Aimster
Copyright Litigation, 334 F.3d 643, 644 (7th Cir. 2003) (“If a breach 
of contract (and a copyright license is just a type of contract) . . . ”);
see also McCoy v. Mitsuboshi Cutlery, Inc., 67 F.3d 917, 920 (Fed. Cir. 
1995) (“Whether express or implied, a license is a contract ‘governed by
ordinary principles of state contract law’ ”.) An industry-wide license
such as the GPL may establish a prima facie case of conspiracy in
violation of the Sherman Act §1. See U. S. v. U. S. Gypsum Co. 333 U.S.
364, 389 (1948). 


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]