| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Why the JMRI decision mattersWhy the JMRI decision mattersPosted Aug 14, 2008 23:42 UTC (Thu) by rickmoen (subscriber, #6943)In reply to: Why the JMRI decision matters by mattmelton Parent article: Why the JMRI decision matters
As bojan says, the important part of the decision is where the Federal Circuit (Court of Appeals) ruled that Jacobsen's licence (AL 1.0) qualified as a grant under copyright law, irrespective of its merits when considered under contract law. That's important because then plaintiff can ask for "court of equity" remedies (injunctions, court orders), whereas contract claims support only "court of law" remedies (economic damages). Please see further explanation of these two distinct bodies of law, if interested. So, required elements of contract were actually not at issue in this case. However, had they been, you would have, in my view, been overinterpreting those of privity and consideration. (This happens over and over, in discussions among computerists.) The requirement of privity of contract is really just a bar to holding to a contract, or granting contract enforcement rights to, people who never participated in the offer or acceptance -- third parties who didn't pose the offer or the acceptance. There is no requirement in contract law that the actual offerer or the actual acceptor ever meet, exchange e-mail, etc. Contract formation can occur entirely through conduct that establish the offer and acceptance separately. Consideration, as you say, gets found rather easily. It is essentially anything that can be reasonably found to have non-zero value, including foregoing of a right or assuming of an obligation that one doesn't otherwise have. Rick Moen
(Log in to post comments)
|
|
||||||||||||