[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Attorney fees
From: |
David Kastrup |
Subject: |
Re: Attorney fees |
Date: |
Sun, 13 Jul 2008 00:31:16 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.60 (gnu/linux) |
Tim Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> writes:
> What the court wants to do is put P in the position P would have been
> in if the infringement had not occurred. There are two ways to do
> that. The one you are suggesting is for the court to speculate what
> would have happened if the D had hypothetically purchased a license to
> do what D actually did. The other way, which is the one I believe
> courts usually go with, is for the court to ask what would have
> happened if D had obeyed the actual license that D had. That requires
> much less speculation.
>
> Under that analysis, P expected to make $0 off of D's use of the
> software, so I don't think it is likely the court would award much
> more than that.
Uh, under that analysis, D is still expected to comply with the license
conditions. So the court would tell D to comply. But it would be a
strange court that told P he should expect to hold up his part of the
deal (the $0 part) while D can be excused from compliance with his part.
I mean, get real.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
- Re: Attorney fees, (continued)
- Re: Attorney fees, David Kastrup, 2008/07/11
- Re: Attorney fees, Alexander Terekhov, 2008/07/11
- Re: Attorney fees, David Kastrup, 2008/07/12
- Re: Attorney fees, Tim Smith, 2008/07/12
- Re: Attorney fees, David Kastrup, 2008/07/12
- Re: Attorney fees, Tim Smith, 2008/07/12
- Re: Attorney fees,
David Kastrup <=
- Re: Attorney fees, John Hasler, 2008/07/12
- Re: Attorney fees, Tim Smith, 2008/07/12
- Re: Attorney fees, rjack, 2008/07/12
- Re: Attorney fees, Alexander Terekhov, 2008/07/12
- Re: Attorney fees, Hyman Rosen, 2008/07/13