Re: Tom Tom and Microsofts Linux patent lock-down ..

[Rjack]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> > So what is your point?
>
> He believes that one may avail himself of the copying and 
> distribution permissions of the GPL while not honoring its 
> requirements,

Only the *illegal* requirements Hymen. Only the *illegal* ones.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_agreement

> because he believes it's the requirements which are unenforceable
>  while the permissions remain.

I believe promissory estoppel applies to failed contracts of
adhesion -- adhesion contracts are stricted interpreted against
the drafter.

"Restatement (Second) of Contracts
ARTICLE 90
Promise Reasonably Inducing Action or Forbearance:
(1) A promise which the promisor should reasonably expect to induce
action or forbearance on the part of the promisee or a third person
and which does induce such action or forbearance is binding if
injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise. The
remedy granted for breach may be limited as justice requires.
(2) A charitable subscription or a marriage settlement is binding
under Subsection (1) without proof that the promise induced action
or forbearance."

"The rule of construction that a contract will be strictly construed
against the drafter needs no citation."; Detroit Bank & Trust Co v
Coopes, 93 Mich App 459, 464; 287 NW2d 266 (1979).

> It's incorrect and more than a little strange to believe such a 
> thing, but that's what it is.

Where is the citation to legal authority that you claim makes my
assertions "incorrect"? Do you suppose a court would simply accept
the force of your rhetoric?

Sincerely,
Rjack :)