Re: Intellectual property
Michael Lorrey (retroman@tpk.net)
Sat, 22 Mar 1997 17:39:24 -0500
The Low Golden Willow wrote:
>
> On Mar 21, 9:21pm, Michael Lorrey wrote, while attacking the idea of
> intellectual property being guarded by individual contracts in an
> anarchy:
>
> } Listen, contracts between individuals don't mean squat. The ski industry
>
> } no fault of the resorts. Every ski ticket has on it a waiver stating
> } that to purchase a ticket is to recognise the individuals complete
> } responsibility for oneself, etc. etc., and signs in front of the ticket
>
> } them. You'd think that they'd be fully protected, right? No such luck.
>
> Uh, I thought this would be because when the injured skier sues in
> government court, the court ignores the ticket contract. Same as you
> can always sue for malpractice.
Even though the state legislature has decreed that ticket contracts are
binding, the courts ignore it. It even happens in cases reminiscent of
the lady who sued McDOnalds over hot coffee. Individuals were skiing
outside the bounds or were skiing negligently and injured someone else,
so the person who was at fault blamed the ski area for allowing him to
ski that way, and won.
Same as various commercial waivers that
> say "Void where prohibited by state law." Contracts between individuals
> don't mean squat to the extent that the government you feel is necessary
> chooses to void the contracts.
>
> That the point you were trying to make?
Exactly. unfortunately, we have a case of local legislative government
being ignored by the judicial government.