2.) The EULA for Autodesk was poorly worded, and hence why it was struck in a Court of Law. It happens.
3.) Pestalence is correct in that the EULA, just as is *any* other software game, application, or program, is a license to USE the software. The point of a EULA is to prevent intellectual property theft by reverse engineering.
I don't think so. I believe the ruling was that the actual sale did not qualify as a license but did qualify as a sale. The example the judge used of a movie licensed to a theater for a set time after which it was returned compared to the copy sold to the actress with no plan to return it. Software is treated by the companies as a sale since there are no limits on the time or requirements for a return when the license expires.
Also as I stated earlier I don't believe that there is a chain of agreements from the software publisher all the way to a retailer that authorizes the retailer to sell licenses. What grants that retailer the rights to sell licenses? If nothing then he could not have sold a license and
must have sold the copy.
IE: ToastyO buys a copy of Linux. ToastyO then takes that copy of Linux and reverse engineers it. He then markets that as his own product. What has he done? Has he done the work of those who created LInux?
No.
Should he be entitled to do whatever he wants with the software just because he paid $59 for it?
Companies routinely buy competitors products and reverse engineer them. Why should software be different?
They do have to beware of patent violation, trademarks and copyrights but may still reverse engineer and use what they learn otherwise.
Consider the BIOS. It was reverse engineered from the original PC which allowed the whole clone market. If it had been illegal would not IBM long ago have stepped in and shut down the BIOS makers and cloners?
It has ALWAYS been the consumers responsibility to
A.) Understand what he is purchasing
B.) Ensure what he is purchasing has what he wants for the price
PERIOD.
Of course the seller has limits too on what they may sell and what they may claim to be selling. If a seller makes claims that are not backed up by the law then they can either end up in trouble or have the buyer safely ignore them.
As an example. Network Associates in New York had this ruling against them for trying to block publishing of independent testing and reviews of their software.
The court further enjoined the company from including with its products "any language restricting the right to publish the results of testing and review" unless the company first gives the Attorney General 30 days notice. The court also required Network Associates to provide it with evidence of its sales, so that the court can set penalties and costs.
In striking down the above clause as "deceptive" and "not merely unenforceable, but warrant[ing] an injunction and the imposition of civil sanctions" under New York's Executive Law and General Business Law, the court noted that on at least one occasion, Network Associates had used the clause to quell a critical review. That review, published in 1999 by Network World, had compared Network Associates "Gauntlet" firewall software unfavorably to five other firewall products. Spitzer's suit described how Network Associates had demanded a retraction of the negative review, citing the language of the now-prohibited clause.
They made the claim and the courts have ruled it illegal and ordered it removed from the EULA. How many other things in Eula's that claim to remove rights from you are similarly illegal and just wait for someone to fight them before they are struck down? Perhaps the entire EULA concept as already happened for books? I think so.
In looking things up for this thread I came across something very interesting that relates to Eula's. Namely "misuse of copyright". Apparently if you misuse your copyright you can lose the right to enforce that copyright until you have corrected the damage of the misuse.
Link to full article quoted belowReynolds asserted that even though it had infringed Lasercomb’s copyright, it should not be found liable because Lasercomb had misused its copyright in the license agreement for the software, and the court agreed.
You will note that the defendant stipulated that it had infringed copyright but the judge agreed they were not liable due to the misuse of copyright in the EULA. So if a EULA forbids you to do things that they may not legally forbid then any copyright violation
you may be guilty of in relation to that product cannot be punished.
As I understand this should I run product X on two machines while having bought one copy if the product maker had terms in the license forbidding me to do something legal (such as sell my copy or move it to a new machine) he cannot enforce his copyright against me.
How could Microsoft (for example) fix the damage done by their claims that you can neither sell your copy of Windows nor move it to another machine? How about the damage to all those who have had to waste their time trying to get their machine reactivated due to Microsofts unilateral disabling of it during activation? Not to mention those who were intimidated into buying new "legal" copies when they had no need to?
Link to text of U.S. copyright law.
Topic: Vista Bashing: the New National Pastime? (Read 11966 times)