(OT) - Major Blow to Copyleft Theory

Alexander Terekhov alexander.terekhov at gmail.com
Mon Aug 27 22:04:00 UTC 2007

On 8/27/07, Chris Travers <chris at metatrontech.com> wrote:
> Ok, this is going from slightly off-topic into a very obscure legal
> discussion among mostly non-Lawyers (IANAL).
> The Artistic License is clearly distinguishable from the De Forest Radio
> Telephone vs. United States case for the following reason important
> reason: in De Forest, a contract existed which included an exchange of
> $1 for certain patent rights.

Don't confuse it with license to the United States government. It was
granted by conduct and without monetary exchange.

"No formal granting of a license is necessary in order to give it
effect. Any language used by the owner of the patent or any conduct on
his part exhibited to another, from which that other may properly
infer that the owner consents to his use of the patent in making or
using it, or selling it, upon which the other acts, constitutes a
license, and a defense to an action for a tort. Whether this
constitutes a gratuitous license, or one for a reasonable
compensation, must, of course, depend upon the circumstances; but the
relation between the parties thereafter in respect of any suit brought
must be held to be contractual, and not an unlawful invasion of the
rights of the owner."

Got it now?


More information about the License-discuss mailing list