Network Associates Loses Battle to Silence Reviewers

ajkessel writes "This article from today's New York Times covers a court ruling against Network Associates in a suit brought by the New York State Attorney General to invalidate Network Associate's shrink-wrap clause which states: 'The customer will not publish reviews of this product without prior consent from Network Associates Inc.' Network Associates has vowed to appeal." Reader SlashDotIDOne points to a CNET story which says "Network Associates could be forced to pay $0.50 for every license which included this draconian requirement: 'The customer will not publish reviews of this product without prior consent from Network Associates Inc.'"

Comments

Tired of New York times?

[Anonymous Coward]

Curious about the story? But too lazy to fill in bogus information in NYT's lengthy form? Then just click here!

And now a review of Network Associates....

[SacredNaCl]

They suck !

That being said, I can't believe their arrogance. Lucky I'm not a judge sitting on that case.

IP should not be a free-for-all

[ShatteredDream]

I have noticed that too often it seems that IP holders, **especially** copyright holders, tend to think that any demand that they be held to the same standards and expectations that everyone other manufacturer is constitutes a draconian restriction of their "rights." Many of the ones I've debated in other forums act like "my shit doesn't stink because I made this so you can't tell me what to do." They think that because it's "their property" they can restrict how their customers use it no matter what. There is a valid argument in some cases such as licensing source code so you can make a derivative product for your company or agency's needs, but off-the-shell? Who the hell are they to do such things?

Copyright holders better learn pretty quickly that the states can really piss on their parade because unbeknownst to many otherwise legally astute individuals, the states, not the feds, have total sovereignty within their borders. That means your little EULA can be balled up and chucked in the trash by NY, CA, VA, etc. They can make it a class 6 felony punishable by 20 years in a state prison for knowingly distributing "copy-restricted" CDs and what can the copyright holder do? Abide by the law or go to prison, that's what. Right now my state, VA, could pass a law declaring off the shelf licenses null and void and there would be no recourse because VA has the right to invalidate any contract within its borders. It can say, "we don't give a rat's ass who you think you are and what jurisdiction you want to be covered in. You are selling your products in Virginia to a resident of Virginia and that means you are under **our** jurisdiction, not Washington State's!"

Personally I think the system would just be better off if each state would invalidate EULAs and make it a felony to sell copy-restricted media within their borders. The feds cannot stop that, period. They can allow theoretically it to pass from point A to point B, but they cannot give the greenlight to Walmart to seel Britney's latest hacked up CD if the state says Walmart cannot. There is no real market for IP. Either you accept the terms of the copyright holder or you go to hell. That's not a market, that's a socialist-style monopoly. Copyright holders need to respect that, if they did they'd be richer, we'd be freer and more supportive of them IMO.