[Top][All Lists]

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

Give PJ a break

From: Rjack
Subject: Give PJ a break
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2008 14:59:20 -0400
User-agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20080708)

Let's give PJ and Eben Moglen the benefit of the doubt.

Perhaps they are simply making what is known in philosophy as a
"category error".

"A category mistake, or category error, is a semantic or
ontological error by which a property is ascribed to a thing that
could not possibly have that property. For example, the statement
"the business of the book sleeps eternally" is syntactically
correct, but it is meaningless or nonsense or, at the very most,
metaphorical, because it incorrectly ascribes the property,
sleeps eternally, to business, and incorrectly ascribes the
property, business, to the token, the book."

Cars are in the category (have the property) of "machine". Dogs
are in the category (have the property) "animals". If you call a
dog a machine you are committing a category error.

"Conditions" are properties of "contract construction". "Field
(scope) of use" restrictions are properties of "RIGHTS GRANTS".

If you have a copyrighted drawing of Whiffy the Cat and you
license the RIGHTS GRANT as "You may use the drawing on silk
screened t-shirts" that is a "field (scope) of use" restriction.
If you then draw Whiffy the Cat on dresses instead, you are
guilty of exceeding the "field (scope) of use" restriction on the
contract interpretation required!

A RIGHTS GRANT directly describes how the rights enumerated in
17 USC sec 106 *CAN BE PUT TO USE*.

"License conditions" are used as terms of contract
construction/interpretation in the formation of a contract.
RIGHTS GRANTS are conveyed to licensees through contracts.
Contracts describe how the permissions described in RIGHTS GRANTS
are "binding" on the parties to an intellectual property license
with respect to liability.

"Field (scope) of use" and "Contract condition" are NOT THE SAME

OK now! Once more! PJ and Eben harken!

"Field (scope) of use" and "Contract condition" are NOT THE SAME

"Field (scope) of use" and "Contract condition" are NOT THE SAME

"Field (scope) of use" and "Contract condition" are NOT THE SAME


-- FIELD OF USE RESTRICTION [general intellectual property-antitrust]. A
provision in an intellectual property license restricting the licensee
to use of the licensed property only in a defined product or service
market. --

reply via email to

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