Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar

[Rjack]

amicus_curious wrote:
> "Rahul Dhesi" <c.c.eiftj@XReXXCopyr.usenet.us.com> wrote in 
> message news:go0i73$nuv$2@blue.rahul.net...
> > Rjack <user@example.net> writes:
> >
> > [ still arguing promissory estoppel ]
> >
> > > > How do you get promissory estoppel without a promise?
> >
> > > "2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any 
> > > portion of it...
> >
> > Permission alone is not a promise.  What is the writer of the 
> > GPL promising to do or not to do? --
> The leap here is the phrase "thus forming a work based on the 
> Program".


"Permission" is a voluntary waiver of a legal right. In the context
of copyright tort law, a "permission" constitutes a promise not sue
for copyright infringement:

"Implicit in that permission was a promise not to sue for copyright
infringement--a promise that at least one court has found to be the
essence of a nonexclusive license. See In re CFLC, Inc., 89 F.3d
673, 677 (9th Cir.1996) ("[A] nonexclusive patent license is, in
essence, 'a mere waiver of the right to sue' the licensee for
infringement.") (quoting De Forest Radio Telephone & Telegraph Co.
v. United States, 273 U.S. 236, 242, 47 S.Ct. 366, 368, 71 L.Ed. 625
(1927))."; Maxwell v. Veeck, 110 F3d 749 (11th Cir. 1997).

http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/110/110.F3d.749.96-2636.html


The waiver of a legal right also constitutes consideration for a
promise:

" 'In general a waiver of any legal right at the request of another
party is a sufficient consideration for a promise.' (Parsons on
Contracts, 444.)"; Hamer v. Sidway 124 N.Y. 538, 27 N.E. 256 (Court
of Appeals of New York, 1891)

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/history/cases/hamer_sidway.htm

Sincerely,
Rjack :)