[linux-elitists] Copyright, loss of enforcement rights (was: MP3 patents)
Karsten M. Self
Fri Sep 7 12:23:51 PDT 2001
on Fri, Sep 07, 2001 at 12:18:54PM -0700, Seth David Schoen (email@example.com) wrote:
> Karsten M. Self writes:
> > #include ianal.h
> karsten.c:1: `#include' expects "FILENAME" or <FILENAME>
I parse, but I don't compile.
> > No.
> > Neither copyright nor patent rights are weakened for *future* actions by
> > non-enforcement, barring a few boundary cases involving estoppal and
> > laches .
> That's "estoppel".
> I once tried to have a law student explain the doctrine of estoppel to
> me. It's a difficult one, with a lot of strange corners; it's not
> particularly easy to relate to everyday experience.
I've got the definitions provided by Black's and the Debian dict
package, as well as several lawyerly attempts at clarification, and I
still can't quite say what it's all about. I think my statements above
(spelling aside) are close to the mark.
Karsten M. Self <firstname.lastname@example.org> http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? There is no K5 cabal
Free Dmitry! Boycott Adobe! Repeal the DMCA! http://www.freesklyarov.org
Geek for Hire http://kmself.home.netcom.com/resume.html
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://allium.zgp.org/pipermail/linux-elitists/attachments/20010907/a295eed0/attachment.pgp
More information about the linux-elitists