Well, for one thing, the license agreement is not on the outside of the box, and I challenge anyone to return a software title where the package has been opened.
I think this is a good thing. Perhaps the software makers can come up with a real, enforceable license agreement. I want their intellectual property to be protected, but the EULAs in use today are comically unjust.
From what I’ve garnered from reading:
Mr. Verner purchased unopened boxes of AutoCad from an auction. I assume that the auction was one where a business was shutting down and selling assets, but that’s not clear.
Anyways, Mr. Verner then put the software boxes, unopened, on EBay.
This is what Autodesk was trying to prevent. The ultimate goal of Autodesk was to prevent resellers on sites such as EBay from selling discounted versions of their software. They want you to buy it from them, or a licensed reseller at the market price.
What it looks like the judge has done is say that as long as Mr. Verner did not open the boxes, it was his legal right to sell the software and now Mr. Verner can continue with his countersuit for harassment by Autodesk.
So what part of the constitution does that violate (particularly since those license terms are available on most software publisher's websites or can be requested in advance of purchase)?