With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Stem, Section 117 of the Copyright Act: Charter of Software Users’ Rights or an Illusory Promise?, 7 W. New Eng.L.Rev. 459, 468 (1985) (footnote omitted). Plaintiff claims that Hall-Kimbrell never authorized defendant to make the enhancements at issue. However, the testimony of Hall-Kimbrell’s representative on this point was contradictory, and the purchase order describing the work defendant was to do suggests that he was asked to add five functions to something already in existence, not provide five free-standing functions. See Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1. While plaintiff also claims that defendant Pfortmiller’s enhancements violate the licensing agreement accompanying the Drafix 1+ program, there is some reason to question the enforceability of any such agreement. See Vault, supra, at 270 (<HOLDING>) Even if the agreement is enforceable, the

A: holding that restriction against decompilation or disassembly contained in license agreement authorized under louisiana law was unenforceable due to federal preemption of louisiana statute
B: holding that a party did not waive its preemption defense where its answer did not specifically mention preemption but contained a broader defense that was capable of encompassing preemption
C: holding that in light of the presumption against preemption there is no field preemption of state unfair competition claims that rely on a substantial question of federal patent law because congress has not expressed its clear and manifest intention to preempt that area of law
D: holding invalid on preemption grounds state statute making agreements to arbitrate franchise claims unenforceable
A.