District Court Denies Injunction Against Unbundling

poemofatic writes: "The ruling posted on Cryptome of a disctrict court ruling denying an preliminary injunction against Softman Products Co. Softman "unbundles" and resells at a lower price stuff like photoshop. But of importance to us is that the court upholds the principle of first sale, and invalidates Adobe's claims that Softman is bound to Adobe's EULA. Here's a choice quote: 'In this case, through the use of licensing, Adobe seeks a vast and seemingly unlimited power to control prices and all channels of distribution. On the other hand, in the absence of copyright law violations, the market can often best regulate prices and all subsequent transactions that occur after the first sale. Sound policy rationales support the analysis of those courts that have found shrinkwrap licenses to be unenforceable. A system of 'licensing' which grants software publishers this degree of unchecked power to control the market deserves to be the object of careful scrutiny.'"

Comments

Re:Some Choice Quotes

[Murgatroyd]

IANAL, but this seems like they are basically making a tentative claim towards the illegitimacy of "licensing" software in general. This appears absolutely _huge_! The Doctrine of First Sale is might be back :)

This isn't really disputing the legitimacy of licensing per se, but rather suggests that "shrinkwrap licenses" aren't really "licenses" in the traditional sense. It seems that they are taking the view that the classic shrinkwrap license, because it is good indefinitely, isn't really a "license" at all, but is instead more of a sales contract.