NOBODY EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION!>..................
Posted on 05/22/2008 1:21:52 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
The US District Court in Seattle on Wednesday ruled in favor of eBay seller Timothy S. Vernor, denying Autodesk’s request for “summary judgment” against Vernor. In doing so the court ruled that Vernor had the right to appeal for relief from Autodesk actions based on the “first sale” doctrine of copyright law. In finding for Vernor, Judge Richard Jones’ ruling dismissed most of Autodesk’s wide-ranging legal arguments as without standing.
If allowed to stand, the ruling effectively pulls the heart out of the license agreements that accompany most retail software products on the market today. You can be sure that not only Autodesk, but most software companies, will take action of some sort in response. It is unimaginable that Autodesk will not appeal this decision.
The case is not over; the court has ordered both sides to sit down and discuss whether the case should continue and settle Vernor’s claim that Autodesk engaged in unfair trade practices in violation of state law in either California (Autodesk’s home) or Washington state (Vernor’s home). Their report to the court is due June 27.
(Excerpt) Read more at aecnews.com ...
Ouch!!! Lots of lawyers are going to be grinding their teeth over this one in the weeks to come.
Very confusing. Can someone out there “bottom line” what is going on here. What exactly was it that Vernor did that Autodesk didn’t like?
This is some great news! I know many people ahve been hampered because of these BS UNCONSTITUTIONAL license agreements.
I'm not sure, but it sounds like he sold his copy of the software.....
Hoisted by their own petard :)
Basically the license agreement says this software license belonged to him and only him, and he couldn’t sell it because they told him he couldn’t. It’s like a car dealership telling you, “OK, you bought this car from us, and you have to live with it, you cannot sell it to anyone else or you are going to be in violation of the law.” It’s pure crap, and this is a common sense decision.
I’m guessing he didn’t expect the Spanish Inquisition.
Many software licenses say you only ‘use’ their program, but the company still ‘owns’ it.
If you try to re-sell the installation disk/package, the company can claim you have no right to — as they still own the product.
The company says that, even though you ‘purchase’ the package/disk, you still are only purchasing the right to use the package; you do not ‘own’ the package.
Which is utter garbage because it’s based on a “shrink wrap” contract; you’re bound to the conditions of the contract by opening the box, before you’re even allowed to read it. If you don’t like the conditions, too bad. Opened software is usually only eligible for an identical exchange, not for refund. No court has ever found a “shrink wrap” contract like this to be legally binding.
NOBODY EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION!>..................
"First sale" doctrine means that if you buy a product, you have a no-strings right to resell that single item to someone else. You still can;t sell copies of the item, or rent it out, or do anything else that "makes a single item into many".,p. Now if only this ruling could be applied to airline tickets...
My understanding is that he wasn’t even the original buyer, so how can the “non-transferable license” even bind him in the first place?
First Sale is in copyright the doctrine that the copyright holder loses control over the re-sale of a copy of a work after he’s sold it the first time (the “first sale”). This doctrine is what allows second-hand book stores to exist. Software companies think they are immune to First Sale, and tell you that you can’t re-sell software you’ve bought through terms in the license.
This decision (if upheld) means that those “no re-sale” terms in licenses are unenforceable. Software gets to be re-sold just like books.
Your assessment and analogy are incorrect. A more accurate analogy would be:
You go to a car company and pay money for a use license (rental) of a vehicle. In that rental agreement, it specifically states that no ownership of the vehicle is transfered to you (i.e. you are not buying the software) and it further states that you may NOT alter (change the source code) or sell the vehicle to anyone else (as you do not own any part of the vehicle). Your agreement only allows you to USE the software, not OWN it. Read your software license very closely.
If you do not like those restrictions on the software license, then do not pay money to use the software and do not install it on you computer. That is why we have the open source movement. People are fed up with these “use licenses” and are pursuing other avenues.
Does Autodesk even use a hardware key on any of their products? I’ve got a copy of Autocad 2000 and there’s no security whatsoever. Every other CAD and CAM system I’ve used had a USB or Parallel dongle.
The reason I ask is because with the current system I’m using (Esprit), the USB key is their property and I have to give it back if they ask for it (I have a dealer license, I’m not sure if the general license is that way or not).
I agree, shrink wrap licensing should not be allow. All licenses should be on the outside of the packaging or made available to the buyer PRIOR to purchase (say at the register).
Can you help me understand what could be unconstitutional about a license agreement since it is entered into voluntarily by the purchaser of the license?
As a software contract manager, I agree it is a 'crap' term, but he didn't have to purchase the software if he didn't like the terms of the agreement.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.