Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Assume defendant's line of reasoning that the contract is in
force but its certain provision(s) are void/unenforcable or in
alternative that the contract gives rise to the doctrine of
copyright misuse making plaintiffs copyrights void/unenforcable
"until the misuse has been purged and its effects no longer
exist" (voiding the entire contract due to lack of
consideration and/or illegality but providing impunity to
infringe plaintiff's copyrights).
But of course no defendant has ever maintained that line of
reasoning. The only ones who do that are the usenet cranks. Were
a defendant to actually do that and follow through with the case,
we would have something interesting to see, but they never do.
They just settle and comply.