Comments on: Top 5 Reasons Software License Agreements are Unlawful http://thewaronbullshit.com/2007/09/05/eula/ Take no prisoners Wed, 10 Aug 2011 18:23:19 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4 By: Tweets that mention Top 5 Reasons Software License Agreements are Unlawful « The War on Bullshit -- Topsy.com http://thewaronbullshit.com/2007/09/05/eula/comment-page-1/#comment-1688 Tweets that mention Top 5 Reasons Software License Agreements are Unlawful « The War on Bullshit -- Topsy.com Tue, 15 Feb 2011 07:06:41 +0000 http://thewaronbullshit.com/2007/09/05/eula/#comment-1688 [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Silveira Neto, Ricardo Bustamante. Ricardo Bustamante said: RT @silveira: Top 5 Reasons Software License Agreements are Unlawful http://thewaronbullshit.com/2007/09/05/eula/ [...] [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Silveira Neto, Ricardo Bustamante. Ricardo Bustamante said: RT @silveira: Top 5 Reasons Software License Agreements are Unlawful http://thewaronbullshit.com/2007/09/05/eula/ [...]

]]> By: liberty http://thewaronbullshit.com/2007/09/05/eula/comment-page-1/#comment-334 liberty Wed, 19 Aug 2009 21:33:32 +0000 http://thewaronbullshit.com/2007/09/05/eula/#comment-334 moreover, nobody cannot return the program CD when he cannot accept the license agreement in the retail shop because all retailer has policy not to refund the open CD moreover, nobody cannot return the program CD when he cannot accept the license agreement in the retail shop because all retailer has policy not to refund the open CD

]]> By: liberty http://thewaronbullshit.com/2007/09/05/eula/comment-page-1/#comment-333 liberty Wed, 19 Aug 2009 21:32:01 +0000 http://thewaronbullshit.com/2007/09/05/eula/#comment-333 this issue depends on the each country. but the most problems in ProCD, Easterbrook has contradiction in his reasoning because he stated this transaction is "sale with restriction", but the EULA has a clause which states that the transaction is a just license not sale." while he states this is sale, EULA states not sale but license depending on this case, all program developers argue the owner of program CD is the developers and the consumers are just licensee not its owner. therefore, consumers cannot resell the CD and only because the licensee can use the program, your family or friend cannot use the program. it may be copyright infringement because ram reproduction is also copyright infringement in the USA. this issue depends on the each country.
but the most problems in ProCD, Easterbrook has contradiction in his reasoning because he stated this transaction is “sale with restriction”, but the EULA has a clause which states that the transaction is a just license not sale.”

while he states this is sale, EULA states not sale but license

depending on this case, all program developers argue the owner of program CD is the developers and the consumers are just licensee not its owner.

therefore, consumers cannot resell the CD and only because the licensee can use the program, your family or friend cannot use the program. it may be copyright infringement because ram reproduction is also copyright infringement in the USA.

]]> By: SaaSonhand http://thewaronbullshit.com/2007/09/05/eula/comment-page-1/#comment-332 SaaSonhand Thu, 30 Apr 2009 16:22:26 +0000 http://thewaronbullshit.com/2007/09/05/eula/#comment-332 do we really read this license agreement or we never bother....just as long it can be useful or something.... do we really read this license agreement or we never bother….just as long it can be useful or something….

]]> By: Kavan Wolfe http://thewaronbullshit.com/2007/09/05/eula/comment-page-1/#comment-331 Kavan Wolfe Thu, 06 Sep 2007 06:54:53 +0000 http://thewaronbullshit.com/2007/09/05/eula/#comment-331 @Alex: Some other relevant cases in U.S. law are Step-Saver Data Systems, Inc. v. Wyse Technology (939 F.2d 91) and Vault Corp. v. Quaid Software Ltd. @Philo: good points. Just one thing: keep in mind that the issues vary by country. I'm more interested in principles of low than the specifics of US law. The treatment of adhesion contracts, for instance, varies depending on the country. @Alex: Some other relevant cases in U.S. law are Step-Saver Data Systems, Inc. v. Wyse Technology (939 F.2d 91) and Vault Corp. v. Quaid Software Ltd.

@Philo: good points. Just one thing: keep in mind that the issues vary by country. I’m more interested in principles of low than the specifics of US law. The treatment of adhesion contracts, for instance, varies depending on the country.

]]> By: Philo http://thewaronbullshit.com/2007/09/05/eula/comment-page-1/#comment-330 Philo Thu, 06 Sep 2007 06:40:20 +0000 http://thewaronbullshit.com/2007/09/05/eula/#comment-330 The leading holding on clickwrap contracts is ProCD v. Zeidenberg ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ProCD_v._Zeidenberg ). Judge Easterbrook came to the horrendous conclusion that clickwrap contracts were enforceable because: 1) All the terms in software contracts are fundementally the same (this is absolutely false) 2) If you did not like the contract, you could return the software. Point 3 above tries to contradict the second part of the reasoning. However, I did a survey of major software publishers in the late 90's, and they *all* had money back guarantees. For example, Microsoft offers a 45 day money back guarantee on all their software: http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/productrefund/refund.mspx Incidentally, contracts of adhesion *are* generally enforceable. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_of_adhesion Having said all that, I do agree there are problems with EULA's and a lot of software publishers really abuse them (the standard "you can't publish a review without our permission" is pretty abusive). The leading holding on clickwrap contracts is ProCD v. Zeidenberg ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ProCD_v._Zeidenberg ). Judge Easterbrook came to the horrendous conclusion that clickwrap contracts were enforceable because:
1) All the terms in software contracts are fundementally the same (this is absolutely false)
2) If you did not like the contract, you could return the software.

Point 3 above tries to contradict the second part of the reasoning. However, I did a survey of major software publishers in the late 90′s, and they *all* had money back guarantees. For example, Microsoft offers a 45 day money back guarantee on all their software:
http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/productrefund/refund.mspx

Incidentally, contracts of adhesion *are* generally enforceable. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_of_adhesion

Having said all that, I do agree there are problems with EULA’s and a lot of software publishers really abuse them (the standard “you can’t publish a review without our permission” is pretty abusive).

]]> By: Alex http://thewaronbullshit.com/2007/09/05/eula/comment-page-1/#comment-329 Alex Thu, 06 Sep 2007 05:59:43 +0000 http://thewaronbullshit.com/2007/09/05/eula/#comment-329 Do you know of any examples where these principals have been tested in court, specifically with Software EULAs or a direct parallel? Do you know of any examples where these principals have been tested in court, specifically with Software EULAs or a direct parallel?

]]>