Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Court Ruling Nixes EULA Sales Restrictions
Raziel writes: "The Register is reporting in this article that a district court has ruled in favour of "software users that wish to extricate themselves from restrictive software licenses". The case in question is Adobe vs Softman, and in its ruling, the District of California seems to vacate Adobe's claims of "irrepairable damage" caused by the resale of Adobe products without forcing the use of Adobe's registration process. The full ruling is available in PDF format here. Any chance of a precedent here?" You can also read the Don Marti piece piece that sparked this discussion.
From the Register article:
The judge, in the case Adobe vs Softman heard in the Central District of California, has ruled that consumers can resell bundled software, no matter what the EULA, or End User License Agreement, stipulates.
So, if this ruling is upheld by the Supreme Court, does that mean that Ebay users, harassed by Microsoft and others for reselling software, would be able to (1) Resell their software and (2) Sue the software publisher for not allowing them to resell?
Bush Lies Watch
Remember that California hasn't passed the UCITA, the law which Maryland and Virginia ratified last year. This makes all consumers subject to all provisions of software licenses, whether they be shrinkwrap licenses or licenses you agree to by visiting a web page. This is, at best, a precedent for the citizens of California. But since California has tried out-of-state citizens (in the DeCSS case), Maryland can just as easily try out-out-state California residents for violating the UCITA.
For clarification, I've attached this flowchart which demonstrates the relationship between the corporations of America (Adobe, Sony, the RIAA, the WTO, etc.) and the people of America. The people are represented at the bottom; the Corporations at the top.
Please, don't keep thinking you can step out of line.
If guns kill people, then CmdrTaco's keyboard misspells words.
IANAL, but I have played one in a courtroom :-) so take what I say with a grain of salt. That said, I notice a lot of people talking about "precedent" and making all sorts of claims as to how this should apply to circumstances other than this particular case. Just two things to consider:
First, precedent is just the statement that this is the first time a given issue of previously unclear legal status has been decided; but just because a court has set precedent with a decision doesn't mean that it will decide a case of _similar_ merits the same way in the future (precedents don't extend beyond the circumstances outlined in the decision itself). So, don't assume you can interpret this decision to mean that all SIMILAR circumstances will be decided the same way, even by this same court! It is also NOT the case that all sweeping decisions set precedent (for example, if the Supreme Court does not accept a case, it doesn't mean that the decision it refused to reconsider becomes precedent for the entire country).
Second, consider the jurisdiction. EVEN IF this decision sets a sweeping precedent and makes a previously unclear legal issue crystal clear in all similar cases, it only applies within the jurisdiction of the court that rendered the decision (here, the Central District of California, one of 94 U.S. District Court jurisdictions). The precedent doesn't apply in ANY other jurisdiction (although it is often a powerful argument that can sway judges in other jurisdictions); it is often the case that appeals to higher courts (particularly the Supreme Court) are accepted based on CONFLICTING precedent setting cases from different jurisdictions. So, don't assume that this decision will protect you if you live in some other part of the country, EVEN IF you are in exactly the same situation and find yourself in exactly the same lawsuit.
Case law on EULAs is still a little muddled, but at least one synopsis page is up at Dan Bernstein's site [cr.yp.to]
Dan Bernstein's site is more than a little muddled, but at least he gave a good link to the applicable Federal law.
The law makes a clear distinction between ownership and possession.
Those restrictions are not made up by the airline companies. Those restrictions are federal regulations and federal laws. You are bound by those laws whether or not you ever fly on a plane.
EULAs are not federal laws. They are made up by the software manufacturers. They only apply to you if you voluntarily agree to them. In this case, the software company has sold you a product, and taken your money, yet deprives you of the ability to utilize that software unless you agree to their additional demands, presented after the completion of the sale.
You know, I normally avoid making a comment like this, but it's just disheartening and discouraging to go to the effort to get your links right, format the text of the entire article nicely so the register doesn't get Slashdotted, only to have the very same submission rejected.
:-(
It'd be nice to know who rejected one's submissions and why, and yes, I checked my URL's to make sure they worked.
I give up. No point in submitting articles - someone else in the in-group will do it anyway. *shrug*
Score: -1, Offtopic
Yeah, yeah, I know this was just a joke, but it sort of pisses me off whenever I hear this particular cheap shot. Because it seems some people actually believed the FUD spread around a couple years ago by panic-stricken ... well, I'm not sure whom. Someone who felt threatened, I guess. For the record (*sigh*, one more time), the Kansas Board of Education did not
or even
All they did was remove the subject from the list of mandatory topics to be covered in a high school science curriculum. Local school boards were free to re-mandate it if desired. Individual schools, or teachers, could likewise teach what they wanted - so long as they include all the state-mandated topics. (Which did not and do not include any "anti-evolution" topics.)
In other words, they referred the question down to the local level. That's all.
I'm not sure why people felt so threatened as to spread FUD about this. It seems that some people feel vehemently that some great calamity befalls children who are told that evolution by natural selection is anything other than a proven fact ... as opposed to a theory with some major difficulties, accepted on faith by atheists mainly because no other current theory is compatible with strict atheism (where strict atheism != agnosticism).
"How can you claim that you are anti-crack, while still writing a window manager?" — Metacity README
From my submissions page:
* 2001-11-01 22:49:31 Federal Court: Adobe Software is Sold, not Licenced (yro,news) (rejected)
But nearly a full month later they realize it actually is news! Old news, but news.
It is a fantastic opinion justifying the decision that everyone should read if you haven't yet.