> I agree with you that harm to third parties is irrelevant as a legal
> consideration.
>
> But Party B clearly is harmed, despite there being no money involved.
>
> Say Party A and Party B both have an interest in having an Ostrich Farm
> Management application developed, which they both intend to use. So
> they
> sign a contract: Party B will write modules to keep track of issues
> related to bird mating and feeding, Party A will write the module to
> connect the application to the International Electronic Ostrich
> Exchange, and and they'll all trade source code so they can
> independently develop and maintain the entire application afterwards.
>
> Party B finishes his modules first, and fires the source off to Party
> A.
> When Party A finishes his modules, though, he refuses to share the
> source with Party B.
>
> No money has changed hands at all during this process. Yet Party A has
> clearly violated the contract, and Party B has clearly been harmed as a
> result.
>
Not so clearly, I think. First, you ignore whether or not Party A is
distributing the improved modules gratis. If so, Party B is receiving
any
benefit anticipated from the mutual effort. Is that an "irreperable
harm"?
The JMRI case has hinted that the SCOTUS has somehow established that
there
has to be real, not just statutory assumed, harm. If both parties have
obtained what they expected, then where is that proof of actual harm?