[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Intellectual Property II
From: |
Alexander Terekhov |
Subject: |
Re: Intellectual Property II |
Date: |
Sat, 11 Feb 2006 20:23:54 +0100 |
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> Nope. It gives you additional rights depending on conditions. You
> can accept the conditions and make use of the rights, or you can leave
> it be. No contract. There is no obligation to accept the conditions.
^^^^^^^^^^^
Your ignorance works against you, dak. The court will look at your
"conditions" and separate them into real conditions that define the
scope of the license for copying (which distinguishes authorized
copies from unauthorized copies) and covenants that define
licensee performance obligations. You won't be able to enforce (or
recoup damages for breach of) the later.
regards,
alexander.
- Re: Intellectual Property II, (continued)
- Re: Intellectual Property II, John Hasler, 2006/02/10
- Re: Intellectual Property II, Isaac, 2006/02/10
- Re: Intellectual Property II, John Hasler, 2006/02/10
- Re: Intellectual Property II, Isaac, 2006/02/11
- Re: Intellectual Property II, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/02/11
- Re: Intellectual Property II, Isaac, 2006/02/11
- Re: Intellectual Property II, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/02/11
- Re: Intellectual Property II, David Kastrup, 2006/02/11
- Re: Intellectual Property II, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/02/11
- Re: Intellectual Property II, David Kastrup, 2006/02/11
- Re: Intellectual Property II,
Alexander Terekhov <=
- Re: Intellectual Property II, David Kastrup, 2006/02/11
- Re: Intellectual Property II, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/02/11
- Re: Intellectual Property II, David Kastrup, 2006/02/11
- Re: Intellectual Property II, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/02/11
- Re: Intellectual Property II, David Kastrup, 2006/02/11
- Re: Intellectual Property II, Isaac, 2006/02/11
- Re: Intellectual Property II, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/02/11
- Re: Intellectual Property II, Isaac, 2006/02/12
- Re: Intellectual Property II, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/02/11
- Re: Intellectual Property II, David Kastrup, 2006/02/11