Microsoft to subborn subversion of the Apache Software Foundation (ars technica) [LWN.net]

Microsoft to subborn subversion of the Apache Software Foundation (ars technica)

Posted Jul 28, 2008 7:08 UTC (Mon) by AJWM (guest, #15888)
In reply to: Microsoft to subborn subversion of the Apache Software Foundation (ars technica) by AlexHudson
Parent article: Microsoft to sponsor the Apache Software Foundation (ars technica)

The defense would be "promissory estoppel".  If MS tries to sue, they are "estopped" (legalese
for stopped, more or less) by the promise they made in the FAQ.

The basic principle is that it's unfair, unjust (and impolite) to tell somebody it's okay to
do something and then turn around and sue them for doing it.

IA,however,NAL

(Log in to post comments)

Microsoft to subborn subversion of the Apache Software Foundation (ars technica)

Posted Jul 31, 2008 2:40 UTC (Thu) by lysse (guest, #3190) [Link]

As I understand it, it's a little more subtle than that (at least under UK law, which I have studied formally but am not qualified in). If you have the right to enforce a particular contract, or part thereof, and you promise not to pursue that right for a particular length of time, and people rely on that promise, you are estopped from then going back later and saying "actually no, I did want to enforce that clause after all". You can change it in the future - you can say "I will be enforcing this clause from now on"; you aren't bound by your promise then to forever forswear from enforcement - but you cannot pursue action retroactively when you said you wouldn't, even though you legally had the right to do so at the time.

But basically, yes - the law frowns on setting contractual bear traps for people, and the doctrine of promisory estoppel is what will prevent your bear trap from catching anyone.