Not directed at anyone specifically, but has anyone noticed that on these lists, people tend to focus on whether or not people's analogies are correct, rather than trying to answer the original question? On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 15:57:25 -0700, David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com> wrote:
If you ran a museum, and you contracted for the use and display of an artifact, and then somehow entered into a contract to sell somebody else that artifact (even though you had no property rights), the original contract supercedes the second contract. Additionally, because there is no alternate source for the item in question (being an artifact and all), the museum can't be forced to acquire the same item (potentially at a loss) to complete the second contract; they would just have to return the money.
Your analogy is valid, it just doesn't show what you think it shows. A court could certainly order the museum to provide the buyer the artifact to the extent that they were able to do so. That's all the TRO is asking for. The TRO doesn't say anything about property rights, it just asks to prevent the ISP from interfering in their use of those IPs.
DS