"Good will" and "if the common person finds it reasonable" are actual legal concepts derived from common law and custom. In case of doubt, sue me. The Brooklyn bridge case: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_C._Parker
Discussion
Huh. What you’re thinking feels like exploring new territory for me.
Help me out with these questions.
- Do you think the existence of people who think it’s right to enforce IP means they are insane?
- If people exist who believe in enforcing IP and are sane exist, would this prove you wrong about whether such contracts should be enforced?
- How would you interpret losing the lawsuit?
- Do you believe that no contract can validly specify anything about future actions of an individual, or only future actions relating to the treatment of information learned?
I would totally lose the suit because the current legal system has created the figure of "intellectual property". It doesn't mean such thing actually exists or that enforcing such laws is moral. I understand all this, I know what world we live in. People are gullible and greedy, often both at the same time.
You may think I'm not answering your last question, especially. But I have, several times. You can agree to do whatever. It doesn't mean it makes sense to anybody else, and as a rule, I would not care. The issue with this specific fiction called "intellectual property" is that it affects everybody else, including me. And that's the line it cannot be allowed to cross.
“I will not sign” makes sense to me. “I will and I’ll break it” challenges me haha. I’ll review the thread to see which you’re on 🫂