Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar

[Rjack]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > The CAFC opinion is utter idiocy, Rahul.
>
> No drunkenness this time? Isn't it awful how those actual judges 
> just don't have the wisdom, intelligence, and perspicacity that 
> you do?

You have to be either drunk or stupid to believe the CAFC was
correct concerning "conditions".

The Restatement (Second) of Contracts Article 224 states:
"Condition Defined:
A condition is an event, not certain to occur, which must occur,
unless its non-occurrence is excused, before performance under a
contract becomes due."

Obviously an "event" that depends on performance of a contract
cannot occur *before* performance of the contract becomes due. This
result is called an impossible condition in contract construction
and is strictly construed *against* the drafter.


The ruling of the CAFC reminds me of this limerick ridiculing the
theory of special relativity:

There was a young lady named Bright,
Whose speed was far faster than light.
She went out one day,
In a relative way
And returned the previous night!

Sincerely,
Rjack :)

                        -Reginald Buller