> if there are no damages, there is no tort.
Erm, it's fairly easy to get injunctive relief and attorney's fees even without damages.
On top of this, there are plenty of reasons to sue other than tort. Unfair competition,
deceptive business practices, breach of contract, etc. Any of these might apply.
More generally, while article 3 of the constitution leaves this open for interpretation, a few
of the recent Supreme Court decisions have allowed large suits with some awfully vague damages
(Mass v. EPA). And many states have their own laws, like CA's recent prop 64, that
essentially do allow tort without damages in certain circumstances.
So, depending the state where the lawsuit is brought and the current makeup of the Supreme
Court, your statement ranges from somewhat incorrect to completely false.
So, just because two entites are making no profits, that doesn't mean they can wantonly
violate their mutual licenses and contracts. Now *that* would be absurd!