Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar

[Rahul Dhesi]

Rjack <user@example.net> writes:

>> 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?

>"But the existence of a license was essentially uncontested in this
>case....

Now I see why you went astray. You thought the key question was whether
or not any license existed.

But there was no doubt whatsoever that some license existed.

The key question was: what were the exact conditions and/or covenants?
Since the license was oral, nobody was sure exactly what it said.  If
nobody is sure what a license says, obviously the courts will have to
guess. And the courts simply made the presumption, in accordance with
the established law, that if you are guesssing, then you should guess
convenants and not conditions.

So you take a case that involves guessing what two people agreed to, and
try to use it to tell us something about a written document that clearly
and repeatedly says "provided that".

As I asked before: Is this the best you can do?
-- 
Rahul
http://rahul.rahul.net/