Can you sue a DAO that offers &quot;software as a coin&quot;? Please help me evaluate the fictitious fact pattern below and understand whether there is a viable legal strategy for the prosecution. Note that this is somewhat futuristic and does not contemplate a current project. That said, let's please assume the technical claims are correct and only evaluate the legal issues involved. If there is a valid legal theory, who will be sued and how? Note that I am not at all a lawyer, so please excuse my poor attempts to use legal language as I would greatly appreciate your input. Suppose IncumbentCo is effectively monopoly in its industry and enjoys large profit margins due to the patent protection that exists on a piece of software it created years ago. Suppose these patents have allowed for IncumbentCo to repeatedly prevents smaller competitors from entering the industry as competition and that the patents are valid. Mr. Founder is a middle manager in the same industry as IncumbentCo and wants to compete with them. For this reason, Mr. Founder creates SoftDAO, a decentralized autonomous organization (DAO), which has a "SAAC"-model ("software-as-a-coin"). Access instances to the software for a user are apportioned by the SoftDAO with a token called "SoftCoin." This works in a similar way to how cloud-SaaS providers like Adobe offer software licenses today, but it is a bit different. Instead of a LLC corporation issuing access for 1 month periods to software, access is granted for small time slices in exchange for SoftCoin tokens. No LLC or corporate entity exists around or in relation to SoftDAO. The software is maintained open-source and contributors are incentivized to contribute to the SoftDAO ecosystem because the are issued SoftCoin tokens by SoftDAO in exchange for their participation. In this way, the tokens act like equity. Because IncumbentCo priced like a monopoly with large margins, it was easy for SoftDAO to grow quickly and take market share. This is 2025, so blockchain and Ethereum is a mature piece of technology that no longer suffers bubbles; at this time in history, the SoftCoin tokens apportions access rights to the SoftDAO software at a price near marginal cost, which was 80% below IncumbentCo's price. The lower pricing meant that though SoftDAO clearly initially offered an inferior product, it was quickly able to gain market share from IncumbentCo. IncumbentCo originally dismissed this as a fad (due to the originally inferior product), but once they reported weak earnings and the SoftDAO product got better, they decided it was the right time to sue SoftDAO. The case makes its way up to the Supreme Court and various legal theories are considered for suing SoftDAO. It was clear that the patents were violated. That said, the main question was: who exactly committed the crime and why are they actually responsible for the harm suffered by IncumbentCo? At first, the CEO of IncumbentCo says to sue SoftDAO. However, the SoftDAO owns no assets, has no employees and, moreover, cannot be compelled to do anything other than what is written in the code base. For this reason, IncumbentCo decides this is not the best legal strategy. Next, the Court considers Mr. Founder as the right defendant. After all, the initiative to make SoftDAO was his idea. Moreover, Mr. Founder has numerous public appearances promoting the SoftDAO on YouTube. He has also been put on lists for "Who's Who in Blockchain" for his contributions to the project, so the public often associates him with SoftDAO. That said, Mr. Founder's lawyers argue the following as defense: Mr. Founder has made many public statements along the lines of "I am but one bee in a hive" and "there is no leader to the project - we are a colony." Though these statements are quixotic, they appear to be made honestly and in good faith. The code for the SoftDAO is open source, with the majority of contributions being made by people other than Mr. Founder. Mr. Founder has never met the vast majority of contributors. There was no hierarchy on top of which Mr. Founder was the leader. After all, the contributors to the product were all compensated in SoftCoins (which acted like equity) and the SoftDAO issued the tokens, not Mr. Founder. None of SoftDAO is the property of Mr. Founder. The SoftDAO source code and project is maintained by a system of smart contracts on the Ethereum blockchain. Mr. Founder is not a majority or even largest owner of the SoftCoin tokens. Some anonymous identity that cannot be identified is the largest owner. He owns less than 2% of the tokens. Simultaneously, IncumbentCo is given legal authorizations to identify the largest owner of SoftCoins because, given their war chest, shareholders have encouraged them to sue as many people as possible to stop SoftDAO. Unfortunately, ownership of SoftCoins is anonymously recorded on the blockchain, were issued by a decentralized exchange, and therefore public keys on the SoftCoin blockchain cannot be readily de-anonymized even through court order. Though the largest owner of SoftCoin could not be successfully identified, the 30th largest owner, Mr. Large, identified himself as such per a Fortune Magazine article ("How Mr. Large is Livin' it Large"). On this evidence, Mr. Large is then sued by IncumbentCo. Mr. Large's defense offers the following arguments: Mr. Large did not commit a crime himself and generally is a good citizen. Suing Mr. Large is like suing an Enron shareholder for owning Enron shares. Typically we do not sue shareholders. Mr. Large is being unfairly targeted simply because he is a public figure with association with the project due to the Fortune Magazine article. It is nearly impossible to prove that Mr. Large is the 30th largest owner of SoftCoin. Court warrant allowed the Court to find some of Mr. Large's public keys on the SoftCoin blockchain, but the blockchain says he is actually only the 100th largest owner now. The Court suspects Mr. Large has failed to produce all of the private keys associated with his ownership of SoftCoin, but cannot prove this. Finally, the Court considers suing a few of the major contributors to the SoftDAO open source code base that have made themselves known to the public (note that at least half of the contributors are still anonymous). They request two forms of relief: (i) stop working on the code base and (ii) force a shutdown of the code base. With some intervening events in between, the lawyers defending the developers argue the following: The developers agree to stop working on the codebase, but their lawyers argue that shutting down the DAO is outside of their control. This is because the developers that are still anonymous can keep working on the project in silence. These other developers have strong incentives to do this given their equity ownership via tokens. Changes to the DAO codebase require votes by SoftCoin holders and any attempt they make to push code to end the project will not be approved by the majority of owners. The developers were not even the major contributors and are not software geniuses. It is not within their skill set to even do what is necessary to shut down the project -- it is something larger than themselves. At last, IncumbentCo realizes that its attempts to achieve legal retribution are in vain -- there is nothing they can do. They take on enough debt to purchase a majority stake in SoftCoin, then they use their governance rights to implode the project. This ends the story. Please help me evaluate the fact pattern above and understand whether there is a viable legal strategy for the prosecution. What rights do they have to protect their interests? If there is a valid legal theory, who will be sued and how? How compelling do you find the arguments above and where are the arguments right or wrong? Even if no legal action can prevent the demise of IncumbentCo, it is still helpful to know who in the SoftDAO ecosystem can be sued and why.
No LLC or corporate entity exists around or in relation to SoftDAO. That's a bad thing, not a good thing, to those involved. Mr. Founder is obviously liable. When he wrote the DAO, he intended that it compete with IncumbentCo, and thus almost certainly intended that the software would violate the patent. And it doesn't matter that he's not the majority owner - he's still a part owner, meaning he's profiting from the infringement. Furthermore, he promoted the scheme, and according to 35 U.S. Code § 271(b), "Whoever actively induces infringement of a patent shall be liable as an infringer." Mr. Large, and any other identifiable part owner, is liable. Mr. Large did not commit a crime himself and generally is a good citizen. Good for him. But lots of people get sued that never committed a crime. Suing Mr. Large is like suing an Enron shareholder for owning Enron shares. Typically we do not sue shareholders. But he isn't a shareholder, and that's critical. If you want the benefits of a publicly traded company, you need to actually make a publicly traded company. Mr. Large is being unfairly targeted simply because he is a public figure with association with the project due to the Fortune Magazine article. Yes, he's being sued because of the article, but so what? It's like saying the police unfairly targeted you for an underage drinking citation because you were dumb enough to post yourself on Facebook. That argument won't fly in court. IncumbentCo can pick who they want to sue. It is nearly impossible to prove that Mr. Large is the 30th largest owner of SoftCoin. Court warrant allowed the Court to find some of Mr. Large's public keys on the SoftCoin blockchain, but the blockchain says he is actually only the 100th largest owner now. It doesn't matter. He's a part owner, by his own admission and by the blockchain evidence. The developers are also liable, also potentially for the whole amount. They created software that infringed a valid patent, and profited from it. If they can't shut it down, they can't shut it down, but they're going to be paying. I'm thinking this is a case where joint and several liability applies; IncumbentCo can go after any particular one of the owners and developers for the entire amount if they feel like it, and then it would be up to that person to then sue anyone else he thinks is partially liable. If Mr. Large is a billionaire and could pay the entire judgement himself, they might just do that. They'd probably go after Mr. Founder for as much as they thought they could get out of him, though. The users are also liable, since the law provides that using a patented invention without authority is infringing. But they're only liable for their one copy, and IncumbentCo may not bother with them, at least initially. However, the SoftDAO owns no assets No, but IncumbentCo is going to seek injunctions against selling SoftCoins or running the software. Could some people slip through the cracks? Sure. People infringe copyright all the time online, and only some get caught. You could easily imagine someone selling pirated software in exchange for cryptocurrency. This would be little different.
Yes, you did something wrong; you used both the university's trade mark and copyright without their permission. I don't know the law in India, however, if it is similar to Australia it is unlikely that the police will be interested in doing anything about it. While it is technically a crime, criminal prosecution is usually reserved for egregious breaches on a for profit basis. I suggest you apologise and agree to stop distributing your app.
On what grounds would you sue? Contract Well, I think that you would struggle to find the necessary elements (see What is a contract and what is required for them to be valid?) In particular, you would struggle to prove that there was intention to create legal relations on their part and possibly on yours. Are you able to identify in your "back &amp; forth" a clear, unequivocal offer and acceptance? Without knowing the details of the "back &amp; forth": I was hoping that someone at $organization might be willing to write an article explaining what you do, the history of the organization and how it works appears on the face of it to be a request for a gift; not an offer to treat. Promissory Estoppel If you don't have a contract then it is possible (IMO unlikely) that they induced you by your actions to commit resources (your time in writing) in anticipation of a reward (them publishing what you wrote). To be estopped they would have to have known that you were writing the article in the expectation that it would have your organisation's name in it, that they did not intend for that to happen and that they allowed you to invest those resources notwithstanding. If you can prove all of that then you can require them to do what they promised. The big difficulty I see in this is did you tell them that a) you were writing the article, b) it would have your name in it and c) you expected it to be published in that form. Copyright If they publish the work or a derivative work without your permission you can sue for breach of copyright. As it stands, they probably have an implied licence to publish and you would need to explicitly revoke that. Options There are two reasons to go to court: Money Principle If you are going to court for money then this is at best a risky investment and at worst a gamble: balance your risk and reward carefully. If you are going to court for a principle then I simultaneously admire your principles and think you're an idiot. Make a deal Explain that the reason that you wrote the article was a) to support their fine publication and the fantastic work it does (even if you don't) and b) to garner good publicity for your organisation. You understand and admire their strong editorial stance (especially if you don't) but the article involved a considerable amount of work and could they see their way clear to give you a significant discount (~80%) on a full page ad facing the article.
The DMCA prohibits circumvention of technological measures that effectively control access to a copyrighted work. So you can't legally "crack" the software, period -- even if you own a disc containing the software and have a valid license to use it, a license to use the work is not authorization to circumvent access controls. So if the disc is copy-protected, by my understanding of the DMCA, you're kinda screwed. (The company might be willing to provide you a replacement copy, even if only to maintain the illusion that the software is "licensed, not sold". But you can't make one yourself.) Likewise, if you have a copy of the disc but have lost the license key, you're screwed. Even if you could prove beyond any doubt that you are the licensee, there's not any law i'm aware of that would compel the copyright owner to provide you another license key. And courts have held that distribution of license keys without authorization is a violation of the DMCA. So whoever might provide you another key, if they're not the copyright holder, has broken the law. If you managed to copy the disc from a friend (without circumventing any kind of copy protection), and had your own license key, you might be in a better position. Many EULAs allow you to make a backup copy. Even if they didn't, copyright law does, so there's a possible case for fair use.
In the case of McKee v. Isle of Capri Casinos, we can tell because that case has been legally decided. As the court says, there was a contract and "the patron was not entitled to the bonus under those rules", and plaintiff "failed to prove the necessary elements of either promissory or equitable estoppel". They did not "represent to her that a bonus would be available if she played the game", and did not "promise to pay the $41 million after the notice was displayed". The (very complex) rules of the game are easily available on the machine, and there is a prominent disclaimer that "MALFUNCTION VOIDS ALL PAYS AND PLAYS". Under the rules, the winning configuration stated that she was entitled to $1.85. The problem was that it also announced "Bonus Award - $41797550.16". This was due to an inexplicable software error which in communicating with the central computer awarded a "legacy bonus", which is no part of the game in question. The maximum legacy bonus is $99999.99; the manufacturer knows of the possibility of this kind of error and has implemented a fix that is thought to eliminate the problem. The first point then is that the casino didn't just claim there was a malfunction, they proved that there was one. Second, the terms of the contract hold: she was entitled to $1.85, and the extraneous message was not part of the contract. That is, she did not actually win the large payout, the malfunction was in saying that she received a bonus. If a patron could likewise prove that they had actually won but the machine malfunctioned to represent the situation as a loss, they would of course be entitled to the appropriate winnings. The problem simply resides in the difficulty of a patron proving that.
As I understand it, you can pretty much sue anybody for anything. The question, of course, is would you win the suit? All the lawyers here can correct me, but I believe in order to win, you would have to Show standing, that is, they're your comments and not someone else's Show that it's a deliberate act, and not just someone accidentally clicked the wrong checkbox. Show that it was an act by the agency and not by Facebook, for example. Show that you've been singled out for your viewpoint (they allow some people's comments) Show that there is no other reason to delete your comments (they're obscene, or advocate for an illegal act, for example). I'm probably missing something else. The real question is, even if you could demonstrate all these things, would it be worth it? You may spend $1,000's and you might not recover your legal fees. The case might take years.
It is not correct to say that drugs are, for example, broadly illegal in many western countries Some specific drugs, or specific categories of drugs, are illegal in certain circumstances, by specific statutes. Which ones vary by jurisdiction. So the analogy breaks down. As for the main question, if by &quot;software cracking&quot; is meant creating a modified version of the software that operates differently, for example by-passes authentication, or allows unlimited &quot;lives&quot;, that would most probably be creatign a derivative work of the software. Creating a derivative work, even if it is never distributed, is copyright infringement under US law: 17 USC 106 (2) lists as one of the exclusive rights of the copyright holder the right to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work; This also covers the right to authorize preparation such works. So merely creating a &quot;cracked&quot; version of the software is technically infringement. However, infringement (of this sort) is not a crime, and no border officer or other government official will care about it in the slightest. It is up to the copyright owner to take legal action, normally by filing suit. If the modified software is never distributed nor advertised, it seems unlikely that the owner will ever even learn of it, and less likely that the owner will sue if s/he does learn of it. Damages in such a case, if the owner brought one, would probably be small, indeed not enough to make it worth the owner's time and trouble. If the cracker starts with an instance of the unmodified original software,m and edits it in place, never making a new copy, s/he is still preparing a derivative work, and (unless permission was obtained, or the work constitutes a fair use) it is still, copyright infringement If the modified software were posted online, the owner could send a takedown notice to the hosting site. If it were being sold, then a suit would be more likely. If what the cracker creates is not a modified version of the software, but instructions for modifying it, it is less clear that that would even be infringement. If the instructions are for evading an access control mechanism, that might be unlawful under 17 USC 1201 the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA. But again it would be up to the owner to take legal action, the government will not care until and unless the owner takes action. (a) The subject matter of copyright as specified by section 102 includes compilations and derivative works, but protection for a work employing preexisting material in which copyright subsists does not extend to any part of the work in which such material has been used unlawfully. (b) The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material. The above answer is specific to the united-states but on this point the laws of other North American and European countries are, i believe, similar, as is the Berne Copyright Convention, at least on the matter of derivative works.
Such clauses are called "copyright assignment", "invention assignment", and/or "works for hire" clauses, partly depending on the clause's intent and wording. They're pretty common in employment contracts for software development and some creative positions. Frankly, the clauses don't actually do much, at least in the US -- copyright law already recognizes the concept of works made for hire (which belong to the employer), and claims too far beyond that are often rejected if they aren't obviously related to company business. With that said, your hypothetical programmer's painting is safe unless it depicts, say, the contents of an email from the CEO. :) Even if the clause technically entitles the employer to claim ownership, the employer has no legitimate interest in doing so. Likewise, that app created outside work is safe as long as it is created using no company resources and is unrelated to the employer's business. If the app is obviously related, that's where things get hairy.