Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Assume defendant's line of reasoning that the contract is in force but its certain provision(s) are void/unenforcable or in alternative that the contract gives rise to the doctrine of copyright misuse making plaintiffs copyrights void/unenforcable "until the misuse has been purged and its effects no longer exist" (voiding the entire contract due to lack of consideration and/or illegality but providing impunity to infringe plaintiff's copyrights).
But of course no defendant has ever maintained that line of reasoning. The only ones who do that are the usenet cranks. Were a defendant to actually do that and follow through with the case, we would have something interesting to see, but they never do. They just settle and comply. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
