[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Tom Tom and Microsofts Linux patent lock-down ..

From: Rjack
Subject: Re: Tom Tom and Microsofts Linux patent lock-down ..
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 07:49:30 -0400
User-agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20081209)

David Kastrup wrote:
Hyman Rosen <> writes:

David Kastrup wrote:
So what is your point?
He believes that one may avail himself of the copying and distribution permissions of the GPL while not honoring its requirements, because he believes it's the requirements which
are unenforceable while the permissions remain. It's incorrect
and more than a little strange to believe such a thing, but
that's what it is.

Sure, but the hollering about "GPL is not enforceable" is beside
the point.  It is not enforceable.  Take it or leave it.  Your
choice.  But before court, you'll have to tell the judge what
choice you made.  And then explain how your actions are
consistent with your choice.

I am beginning to believe that you *really* don't understand that a
U.S. court will refuse to enforce an illegal contract term against a
defendant regardless of whether the defendant agreed to the term or
not. What is so hard to grasp concerning the principle that an
illegal contract term is construed against the drafter of the contract?

Rjack :)

reply via email to

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