[kbutler]

> You can put "Users may not breathe while using this website" in your ToS but that doesn't make it enforceable. A ToS has to have some basis in law.

You seem to be confusing copyright law with contract law. ToS are generally considered part of contract law, under which anything that is not illegal can be part of the contract, and the parties agreeing to the contract would be obligated to comply.

There are exceptions to enforceability (like contracts of adhesion and unconscionable terms, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_form_contract) that may limit enforceability of a contract or terms of use, but "basis in law" is not necessarily required.

In contrast, copyrights (and patents, and trademarks) involve certain rights granted by law and explicit and unstated limitations to those rights. Owners of copyrights/patents/trademarks may make assertions that go beyond their rights and are thus not enforceable as they have no basis in law.

In the Wolfram|Alpha case, then, the questions involve (a) does linking to a site constitute acceptance of the terms of use? (b) does using the site constitute acceptance of the ToU? (c) are the terms actually an enforceable contract (not illusory/unconscionable).

[mentat]

It would seem that the person violating the ToU is the user of the app, not the application writer. Using Apple to enforce this seems to be quite a stretch.

If you want to say creating a deep link is a copyright violation, then any browser which allows bookmarking is in violation?

[cma]

In the US you don't have to sign a contract or be part of an agreement to be bound by it. For example, if an MS exec has a noncompete and Google hires him, knowing about the contract, but not being party to it, Google can still be sued.

[Nick_C]

I have trouble believing this is the case. Perhaps only in a very limited set of circumstances. Can you give us some references?

The reason I doubt it is that it opens a huge can of worms about how I could entrap a third-party into a contract that they haven't accepted and haven't exchanged consideration for.

[cma]

http://www.myemploymentlawyer.com/non-compete-covenant-FAQs....

" If your non-compete is valid, then a third party who induces you to break it can face the same liability as you, and possiby more. To avoid this liability, the new employer will often terminate the new employee, which it is free to do."