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.
ruling against adobe.. in adobe pdf format.
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
Does this decision have any impact on upgrading software and getting price breaks?
For example, I upgrade from Crapsoft 3.1 by buying Crapsoft 4.0 and get a rebate on Crapsoft 4.0 because I have a 3.1 UPC symbol.
So can I sell Crapsoft 3.1 to someone because I am no longer using it and I made two purchases and am only using one?
Jesus saves....And takes 1/2 damage.
The article and ruling are worded such that the ruling only applies to unused software. IE you can't decide a week after using XP that you don't like it and sell it (If the EULA doesn't permit that) But if you never installed it you are fine.
What if the software is installed by default. Software that has a clickthrough or registration screen built in on first use will probably still be covered, but other stuff may not be.
This might be more of a reason for software companies to sell their product as a service which is valid for a set amount of time then as a product which is good for use indefinetly.
"Karma can only be portioned out by the cosmos." -Homer Simpson
According to the judge:
If you put your money down and walked away with a CD, you bought that copy, EULA or no EULA
So, if you bought that copy, and you own it, it is yours. And according to property law, I can do what I want with what I own, including disassemble it. Correct? So therefore, I can defeat any copy protectoin schemes on the software I buy. Correct? Does this not contradict the DMCA? Assuming a DVD is software, this makes DeCSS totally legit. Hopefully the SUpreme Court will uphold this ruling, and it can be used in DMCA cases!
This isn't as much "normalization" as it is "don't take so many drugs when you're designing tables."
Of course IANAL, but:
Since it it is in Federal court, whether or not a state has passed UCITA is irrelevant, as the decision doesn't involve state law of any kind. I would assume that for the time being it only applies to the district in which it was decided, but as it works its way through the Federal system it should apply to all residents within that jurisdiction. Presumably Adobe will apeal it to the 9th Circuit, but that tends to be a fairly liberal circuit and would likely side with SoftMan. So it would likely go to the Supreme Court that with its current makeup is more likely to side with Adobe both because the user agreed to it, and because the lower court has the appearance of making new law. Consumers would probably be best served if the Supremes decide not to hear it, since most major software companies are in the 9th circuit and would for all practical purposes be bound by any decision of the 9th circuit.
Work for Change & GET PAID!
I read most of the decision a couple of weeks ago. Indeed, a ray of enlightenment seems to have struck the California courts.
Adobe complained that Softman wasn't allowed to unbundle the Adobe Collection, as that was a violation of their license. According to my (inexpert) reading, the court applied what I call the "duck test" to the transaction that took place between Adobe and Softman: If it looks like a sale and walks like a sale and quacks like a sale then, no matter how persistently and shrilly you call it a "license," it's a sale, because that's the behavior you engaged in.
The court stopped short of stating that the EULA was non-binding. Since Softman never installed the software (triggering the EULA activation clauses), there was no need for the court to address this point. So whether EULAs are binding is still an open question. It may be possible to argue that, if one purchases the software but then refuses the EULA, the terms of the earlier sale apply. That means you would get to use your software, no matter what the EULA says (U.S.C. 17, Sec. 117(a)).
Perhaps Slashdot user Werdna would care to chime in with a more expert analysis?
There is the danger that software industry lobbyists will now lean harder on the California legislature to get UCITA rammed through. So if you're a Californian, get on the horn to your state representative and tell them, as a consumer, you're very happy with the court decision, and that UCITA would undo their good work and should be avoided.
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
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 does this mean we can resell GPLed software without distributing the source code?
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?