Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8904890" data-attributes="member: 42582">I don't know what [USER=20741]@Steel_Wind[/USER] had in mind.But not far upthread I posted the best argument I can see, based on my thinking so far, to support what WotC now says that it wants to do.Way, way upthread [USER=1772]@bmcdaniel[/USER] expressed the view that the power to sub-licence following revocation by WotC of its standing offer was an uncertain thing:You might recall that several times I've said that IP is not my main field. Legal interpretation is, but I work primarily on the interpretation of statutes and constitutions, not contracts, and those public law instruments bring some distinct stuff with them.So it in part reflects my own interests, inclinations and abilities to construct - as I have done above - an argument for WotC that rests on what seems to me to be a somewhat plausible if less than self-evident interpretive move, which exploits an ambiguity in the definite description that occurs in section 4. I don't assert that my idea is definitive in any way. But I do think it is consistent with what bmcdaniel posted.Whereas I cannot see any interpretive move that establishes a power of "deauthorisation" based on the construction of section 9. Which is not to say that there isn't one, but no one has actually explained what it would be. Whereas I have set out upthread both a reasoned interpretation of section 9 (which I think is fairly straightforward) and the issues I see in section 4 (which I think is very complicated from the interpretive point of view).</blockquote>

Verification