Re: RES: What makes software copyrightable anyway?
On 5/17/05, Raul Miller <moth.debian@gmail.com> wrote:
> Anyways, I don't really care whether or not you can find a conflict
> between some perhaps irrelevant text and the definition you've
> asserted -- I want to see some citation that leads me to believe
> that the distinction you've asserted is correct.
Hey, you were the one who claimed that the assertion "a license is a
provision in a contract" conflicted with the cases cited in my
previous e-mail. I repeat, what conflict did you have in mind,
exactly?
As for positive citations, I think I've been pretty generous with them
already: Sun v. Microsoft, SOS v. Payday, Jacob Maxwell v. Veeck,
Effects v. Cohen, op. cit., and all that. One of these days I'll drop
by the law library and get chapter and verse from Corbin and Nimmer --
unless someone else feels like putting in the effort. Leading you to
believe something you don't already believe seems to be rather hard
work. (I suppose that's equally true of me.)
Does it help if I concede that sometimes a judge uses the word
"license" to refer to the whole agreement, not just the provision
granting certain rights from licensor to licensee? (Not, mind you,
when it's particularly important to the case at hand, as when
analyzing the "scope of license" -- a judge who makes that error gets
overruled on appeal, which is embarrassing.) Would you consider
conceding, in return, that you can't find any court decision that
applied some legal theory other than contract in order to analyze the
scope and effect of a license, and it's not for lack of trying?
In any case, you may rest assured that, if I do run across case law
that uses another theory to analyze a license, I will bring it to your
attention. After all, this background research is not exactly rocket
science; anything I can find with FindLaw, anyone else can too, and
sooner or later someone will.
Cheers,
- Michael
Reply to: