Software Transferability? (or the lack of it)

BarefootClown asks: "We've all seen the stories about Microsoft forcing eBay to remove auctions hawking their software. Microsoft is certainly the most visible target, but there are others. Most every EULA includes a clause forbidding the transfer of ownership of software (there are exceptions, of course, and kudos to them). My question is, have these clauses been upheld in court?" What is so special about software (and their licenses), that allows it to avoid the protections consumers enjoy from more tangible products?

"I seem to recall hearing stories of courts overturning these schemes; does anybody have any specifics? Cases/judicial opinions, perhaps? I've checked FindLaw, Google, and others, but haven't found anything (haven't found anything upholding them, either...). Have these clauses ever even been to court, or do the companies just depend on FUD to bludgeon the end user into compliance? Anybody with experience, I'd love to hear it. Lawyers, your opinions? (Lawyers, would you be willing to fight one out in court, if given the chance?)"

As many of you may know, the concept of "owning" software is fallacy. You own nothing. What you do posess when you purchase your new piece of commercial software, is a corporate-skewed set of limited-use rights, which are getting more and more limited each day. For those interested, the latest print issue of Wired (October, 2001) has a big "article" on this (see p.170). It attempts to illustrate thru humorous example, what software has been seriously doing for decades.

No one would own (or lease) a car if the contract said, "You must not sell this car, in the event this car is no longer used, send it to the nearest junkyard.", so why is this true for software?

Comments

copying

[Reckless Visionary]

Well, for one thing, you can't make a perfect copy of the car to keep and then sell the original. You can with software. I'm not agreeing with the liscensing restrictions, but there is a difference between the nature of the products.

Re:because...

[fishbowl]

Cray wanted to make money, and that university
lab was a sucker to agree to those terms in the
first place... and whoever bought it from them
was also a sucker.