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

[Rjack]

David Kastrup wrote:
> Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com> 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?

Sincerely,
Rjack :)