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.

Comments

Reselling Software...

[Ivan Raikov]

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?

No UCITA; meaningless

[Exmet Paff Daxx]

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.