Terry Carroll <carroll[_at_]tjc.com> wrote:
>
> By the way, is anyone else dissatisfied with the term "implied license"?
> This phrase, to me, carries with it a connotation that the existence of
> such a license is determined subjectively, from the point of view of the
> putative licensor. That clearly doesn't hold with case law on the
> subject. I've seen a few Federal Circuit patent cases that use the term
> "inferred license," which I greatly prefer. It carries with it, quite
> properly, in my view, that the existence of the license is determined
> objectively, and if there's any point of view at all, it's that of the
> person in the position of the would-be licensee.
An excellent point, with which I completely agree. Of course, the law, lawyers, legislators, and even some of our most astute judges frequently get the terms "imply" and "infer" exactly bass-ackwards. See "The Subverting of the Goeduck: Sex and Gender, Which and That, and Other Adventures in the Language of the Law," University of Puget Sound Law Review, Vol. 14, No. 3 (1991) at 778-79.
Bob Cumbow
<cumbr[_at_]perkinscoie.com>
Received on Thu May 15 1997 - 15:58:25 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:25 GMT