[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: CAFC took JMRI case under advisement
From: |
Hyman Rosen |
Subject: |
Re: CAFC took JMRI case under advisement |
Date: |
Wed, 02 Jul 2008 17:59:54 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (Windows/20080213) |
rjack wrote:
Eben Moglen is asking the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
> to overturn the clear and unequivocal language of the Supreme Court
> in De Forest Radio Tel. & Tel. Co. v. United States, 273 U.S. 236,
> United States Supreme Court (1927):
"Whether this [act] constitutes a gratuitous license, or one
> for a reasonable compensation, must, of course, depend upon
> the circumstances; but the relation between the parties
> thereafter in respect of any suit brought must be held to be
> contractual, and not an unlawful invasion of the rights of
the owner."
Here's the decision: <http://supreme.justia.com/us/273/236/case.html>.
First of all, the case was about a patent, not a copyright. Second,
the decision also says
'Concede that, if the owner had said, "If you go on and infringe
my patent, I shall not attempt to enjoin you, but I shall
subsequently sue you for infringement," the tort would not be
waived;'
and that is similar to language contained in the GPL.
- Re: CAFC took JMRI case under advisement,
Hyman Rosen <=