|
Threshold:
I never said that money was required to equal consideration. What I did say was that merely providing one the opportunity to build on a codebase would not be consideration. This would be akin to saying that in the aforementioned analogy the owner provided the poet with pen and paper to write the the poem but kept the pen and paper once the poem was completed. This in no way would be considered consideration. As I mentioned before, if the mud gave the builder IMM privileges, this may be considered consideration if it were given for the work. Moreover, you know providing the statute means nothing without looking at the annotated code for proper interpretation.
Please don't try to dismiss me with some "common law student fallacy" statement. This summer I will be working at Mayer, Brown, Rowe, & Maw (as long as we are comparing resumes). No "common" student gets hired there.
As far as damages are concerned, you should know that copyright damages are statutory and would not be based on basic contract remedies. Therefore, to dismiss damages as minute at best is not a correct restatement of the law.
As far as "possession is nine-tenths of the law" crap. You should know that statement is full of crap and is one of the first things you learn is incorrect in your first year Property class. I can describe all sorts of situations in which that statment is incorrect, including lost or mislaid property, conversion of chattel, theft, and bailor-bailee relationships, You may intimidate others by pointing to your J.D., but that won't work with me.
.
You may have gone to law school, but you grossly misstate the law in some instances. I don't know if this is because you run a Mud and wish to convince people that you are right or if you are just mistaken. Nonetheless, you should aim for preciseness when it comes to discussing legal matters and not postulate your opinion.
|