On 5/17/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Anyways, I don't really care whether or not you can find a conflict > between some perhaps irrelevant text and the definition you've > asserted -- I want to see some citation that leads me to believe > that the distinction you've asserted is correct.
Hey, you were the one who claimed that the assertion "a license is a provision in a contract" conflicted with the cases cited in my previous e-mail. I repeat, what conflict did you have in mind, exactly? As for positive citations, I think I've been pretty generous with them already: Sun v. Microsoft, SOS v. Payday, Jacob Maxwell v. Veeck, Effects v. Cohen, op. cit., and all that. One of these days I'll drop by the law library and get chapter and verse from Corbin and Nimmer -- unless someone else feels like putting in the effort. Leading you to believe something you don't already believe seems to be rather hard work. (I suppose that's equally true of me.) Does it help if I concede that sometimes a judge uses the word "license" to refer to the whole agreement, not just the provision granting certain rights from licensor to licensee? (Not, mind you, when it's particularly important to the case at hand, as when analyzing the "scope of license" -- a judge who makes that error gets overruled on appeal, which is embarrassing.) Would you consider conceding, in return, that you can't find any court decision that applied some legal theory other than contract in order to analyze the scope and effect of a license, and it's not for lack of trying? In any case, you may rest assured that, if I do run across case law that uses another theory to analyze a license, I will bring it to your attention. After all, this background research is not exactly rocket science; anything I can find with FindLaw, anyone else can too, and sooner or later someone will. Cheers, - Michael
