Dave wrote: > But when Mozilla implements @font-face and ensures it notes on all > documentation and marketing of the feature that users and publishers > must be careful to only use fonts that they are authorised to > redistribute, it has a fair defence against such a lawsuit.
The point is not to spend money on a lawsuit at all, not to be able to win one after considerable expense. > I don't think a contractual dispute between a web publisher and a font > developer for breaking the contractual license agreement would effect > a browser developer. Given that you're not a lawyer, much less a copyright lawyer, it doesn't seem to me like it matters much what you think here... This applies to your entire lengthy legal analysis, for what it's worth. > Would such a threat have any basis? I don't think so See above. > I speculate that David Hyatt and his bosses at Apple, who are privvy > to the secret W3C CSS Working Group discussions, share this assessment > since they have implemented and shipped @font-face with marketing > flare and disregard for TrueType DRM. They may share your assessment that such a lawsuit would be winnable and be willing to spend the money winning it. For reference: To put this into perspective: Apple 2006 gross revenue: $19.3 billion Apple 2006 profit: $1.9 billion Mozilla 2006 gross revenue: $66.8 million Mozilla 2006 change in assets: +$27.9 million Apple literally has over a hundred times the resources for fighting a lawsuit like this. -Boris _______________________________________________ dev-tech-layout mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-layout
