Rjack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Alexander Terekhov wrote: >> http://jmri.net/k/docket/227.pdf > >> Lastly, Plaintiff must prove a likelihood of success on the merits or >> a fair chance of success on the merits of his copyright claim. > > It's a loooooooong way from over. The Federal Circuit ruled narrowly on > whether the terms were "covenants" or "conditions" and that's all -- > discovery has yet to be initiated concerning the merits of the case. > > Contract "conditions" and "covenants" are both "contract terms". Terms > of a contract are subject to the rules of contract interpretation > whether they are covenants or conditions. > > Consider: > > "You may copy my work if you *promise* to murder your mother" and > another that states, "You may copy my work *provided that* you murder > your mother". One contains a contract covenant the other a contract > condition but they are both illegal terms that are held against the > drafter of the contract. > > Copyright preemption, illegal terms ("against public policy"), mutual > mistake, and impossibility of terms (among a thousand other rules) have > yet to be examined under the Federal Circuit's implimentation of > "condition" versus "covenant".
With your remarkable grasp of legal matters I would not be overly surprised if you considered dumping your household garbage in a cemetery to be perfectly feasible since their policies of only burying dead persons amounts to asking for murder and thus any of their conditions and tariffs need not be heeded. > Anyone remember Yogi Berra's "It ain't over 'till it's over"? When only isolated lunatics remain, it is over. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
