[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar

From: Rahul Dhesi
Subject: Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar
Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 22:35:37 +0000 (UTC)
User-agent: nn/6.7.0

Rjack <> writes:

>Unfortunately, if you wish to refute my cited authority of Graham v
>James you'll have to do it on your own dime. The case *clearly* refutes
>"automatic termination" due to breach so either you haven't read it or
>are incapable of understanding it. Alexander Terekhov also directed you
>to the same case. TRY READING THE CASE!!!!


The opinion that you so triumphantly cite states: "Graham and James
orally agreed to the licensing agreement and did not clearly delineate
its conditions and covenants."

A case about an unclear oral agreement -- that's all you can come up
with?  After all these repeated citations, you couldn't find even one
case in which clear written "conditions" language was held to not create

Not even one case?

The CAFC was well aware of this case and I will go with the CAFC's
analysis over yours.

The real moral of the case that you cite is a different one:

  An oral agreement isn't worth the paper it's written on.  

reply via email to

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