NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8899251" data-attributes="member: 42582">My knowledge of the tort of interference with a contractual relationship in the Australian context is thin, and in the US context thinner.But my tentative view is that while what you say might be possible in principle, it would be an absolute nightmare in reality. Because WotC is now the defendant, and so has both an interest in stalling and the capacity to do so via all the sorts of legal manoeuvring described in this and other threads. Also, because tortious claims generally turn heavily on questions of fact, the evidentiary and discovery aspects become much more involved.I guess there's a chance hat hypothetical-Reynard might get a settlement out of it.So WotC is trying to sue for breach of copyright (on the basis that there is no licence) and in the alternative sue for breach of the licence (on the basis that if there is a licence on foot, its terms have been breached)? Their pleadings would have to make out both cases in a fashion that doesn't rely on contradictory claims or evidence.I doubt even US discovery law lets them plead breach of the licence with no particular breach pleaded. And hypothetical-Reynard can just hand over copies of all his publications, which will exhibit (or not) the alleged failures to comply - the licence doesn't impose any obligations that require conduct that cannot be evidenced by handing over those files, I don't think.As far as the substance of the alternative pleading, I think hypothetical Reynard might be best accepting the allegations of breach of the licence and offering to cure as requested. To me it serves the defendant's interests, in this case, to make everything about the continued existence of the licence agreement.</blockquote>

Verification