RE: LICENSE LIMITS

In Message Fri, 11 Mar 1994 13:14:59 -0500,   tenney[_at_]netcom.com (Glenn S. Tenney) writes:
>
>In case you missed it... I was quoting McCarthy's Desk Encyclopedia
>of Intellectual Property. But it also matches many of the comments
>I recall at a BNA conference for IP lawyers shortly after that ruling
>came out.

Whatever the source, it's just not correct. The Vault court was absolutely clear in its holding that the state law claim was preempted. I find it hard to believe, in any event, that someone would claim that the adhesive nature of a contract, standing alone, renders it unenforceable; again, that's just not so. A contract of adhesion may raise some red flags, but unless there is evidence of substantive unconscionability or duress, the contract will be enforced (e.g., insurance contracts as well as many other adhesive contracts); while the adhesive nature of the transaction is a necessary element in unconscionability analysis, it is not a sufficient element.

Sheldon W. Halpern
Professor of Law
The Ohio State University College of Law <shalpern[_at_]magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> Received on Sat Mar 12 1994 - 20:58:19 GMT