On Mon, 08 Sep 2003, Rick Moen wrote: > Moreover, the enforceability of shrinkwrap licences has been heavily > contested and is in ongoing doubt, as they have tended to be ruled to > be contracts of adhesion (i.e., lacking in meaningful privity of > contract).
Certainly. But the mere application of the standards of contracts to them is indicative of case law considering them as contracts, which is why I brought those citations up. > The alleged _contract_ is null and void. You are still begging the > question of licensing irrespective of contract, So when the contract is thrown out, you wish to say that the license still applies because there's another way for it to apply besides being a contract? Why do the attorneys in Specht v. Netscape fail to bring to fore this other form of licensing? > And you have been wasting your time and mine. Your time is yours to spend or waste. My time is mine to do with as I see fit. Please do whatever you feel most confortable with. Don Armstrong -- Three little words. (In decending order of importance.) I love you -- hugh macleod http://www.gapingvoid.com/graphics/batch35.php http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
pgp9UcO5ev2tr.pgp
Description: PGP signature
