Short article, can copy the whole thing.
[quote]Software company Autodesk has failed in its bid to prevent the second-hand sale of its software. After a long-running legal battle, it has not been able to convince a court that its software is merely licensed and not sold.
Like many software publishers, Autodesk claims that it sells only licences to use its software and that those who pay for it do not necessarily have the right to sell it on. It sued Timothy Vernor, who was selling legitimate copies of Autodesk software on eBay, for copyright infringement.
The US District Court for the Western District of Washington has backed Vernor, though, in his claim that he owned the software and had the right to sell it on.
The Court said that there were two cases to use as a precedent and that they clashed fundamentally. It had no choice, it said, but to follow the earlier precedent, which was a dispute over the ownership of prints of Hollywood films sold to film stars.
While many of the film copies were explicitly only licensed, the court had previously found that in one case, involving Vanessa Redgrave, the agreement had transferred ownership of the print to the actress. This is called the Wise case.
One major consideration in that was the fact that the studio did not have the right, as it did in other agreements, to demand the return of the print.
The Court said that though the issue was complicated, software agreements were similar enough to those film agreements to act as a precedent.
"The Autodesk License is a hodgepodge of terms that, standing alone, support both a transfer of ownership and a mere license," said the ruling. "Autodesk expressly retains title to the 'Software and accompanying materials,' but it has no right to regain possession of the software or the 'accompanying materials'. Licensees pay a single up-front price for the software. Autodesk can require the destruction of the software, but only as consideration in the later purchase of an upgrade."
"The court concludes that Wise leads to the conclusion that the transfer of AutoCAD copies via the License is a transfer of ownership," it said.
The Court said that it had to follow that case's precedent because it was older than another conflicting ruling, and that it could not choose a precedent based on the most desirable policy.
"The court’s decision today is not based on any policy judgment. Congress is both constitutionally and institutionally suited to render judgments on policy; courts generally are not," the Court ruled. "Precedent binds the court regardless of whether it would be good policy to ignore it."
The Court did say, though, that Autodesk's claims that Vernor's actions were likely to result in the creation and sale of illegal copies of its AutoCAD software were not well founded.
"Autodesk’s claim that Mr. Vernor promotes piracy is unconvincing," the ruling said. "Mr. Vernor’s sales of AutoCAD packages promote piracy no more so than Autodesk’s sales of the same packages. Piracy depends on the number of people willing to engage in piracy, and a pirate is presumably just as happy to unlawfully duplicate software purchased directly from Autodesk as he is to copy software purchased from a reseller like Mr. Vernor."
Vernor had tried to argue that Autodesk's behaviour in suing him amounted to a misuse of its copyrights. The Court rejected that claim.[/quote]
[url]http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2009/10/06/software_ownership_ruling/[/url]
It'll be interesting to see if this is applied to games in the future.
maybe then we can all pirate software, right guys?? :twisted:
maybe?? i do it all day everyday cuz i dont feel like PAYIN FOR DAT CUZ I AM HARDCORE
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Warez" - Jaanus))[/highlight]
Also, this raises further questions about legality of piracy and what exactly is defined as software. And if you own the software, but at the same time with every copy owned you also own just 1 license to use the owned software.
It's like having a license for a gun you own - but that's kinda a bad comparison since in some places of the world weapons are bought and sold like menthol flavored mints
Last year I went to visit my cousin in Seattle, and we were hanging out with this guy who said he was in a legal battle with Autodesk over selling their software on his eBay store.
I wonder if it's the same dude.
Fuck Yeah!
This makes my Discreet software non-transferrable and locks it to the serial number of my Tezro permanently!
I for once can agree with this song
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhnUgAaea4M[/media]
[QUOTE=TH89;17714230]Last year I went to visit my cousin in Seattle, and we were hanging out with this guy who said he was in a legal battle with Autodesk over selling their software on his eBay store.
I wonder if it's the same dude.[/QUOTE]
The case is in Washington, so probably.
This should be used as a precedent to make DRM that limits the number of installations illegal. If reselling software has been made fully legal, than this should be used against software measures that prevent resale.
Software is software. It doesn't cost anyone anything if you copy it millions of times. It can make a few bucks by being sold once. It's not currently encompassed by any real legislation. Nobody can figure out what to do about it.
awesome
I wonder if this ruling would be relevant to EA's method of limiting installs? Or even Steam?
Too bad Lankist is banned.
[QUOTE=dryer-lint;17715242]I wonder if this ruling would be relevant to EA's method of limiting installs? Or even Steam?
Too bad Lankist is banned.[/QUOTE]
Lankist got banned? Where?
The thing about limited installs is simply a measure to prevent people from distributing copies of their license. You just call EA and they reset it, pretty easy. Not so easy if thousands of people need it to be reset all the time. That's how It works.
Same with windows installs. I call to reset my serial license number thing all the time.
I think the Autodesk license is illegal in Europe, at least in Finland it is.
[QUOTE=trogdor6666;17720773]The thing about limited installs is simply a measure to prevent people from distributing copies of their license. You just call EA and they reset it, pretty easy. Not so easy if thousands of people need it to be reset all the time. That's how It works.
Same with windows installs. I call to reset my serial license number thing all the time.[/QUOTE]
It's still licensing, which is what this whole case was about.
[QUOTE=billeh!;17715297]Lankist got banned? Where?[/QUOTE]
He got banned from the bar. He isn't a lawyer anymore. He has to turn in his badge or whatever the fuck lawyers have to indicate that they're lawyers.
Gavel. That's the one. He has to turn in his gavel.
[QUOTE=Murkrow;17714209]Also, this raises further questions about legality of piracy and what exactly is defined as software. And if you own the software, but at the same time with every copy owned you also own just 1 license to use the owned software.
It's like having a license for a gun you own - but that's kinda a bad comparison since in some places of the world weapons are bought and sold like menthol flavored mints[/QUOTE]
It's an owned license that is transferable.
I guess.
[QUOTE=dryer-lint;17715242]I wonder if this ruling would be relevant to EA's method of limiting installs? Or even Steam?
Too bad Lankist is banned.[/QUOTE]
I agree, Lankist would be able to provide more insight into what this case means than a news article alone.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;17722407]I agree, Lankist would be able to provide more insight into what this case means than a news article alone.[/QUOTE]
No, he'd just troll us with his own faked controversial opinion and then argue with everyone for the next ten pages until he can wank off.
[QUOTE=Madman_Andre;17722669]No, he'd just troll us with his own faked controversial opinion and then argue with everyone for the next ten pages until he can wank off.[/QUOTE]
Whether or not he trolled, or even had a good opinion, he knew his shit about legal issues.
This will make those pirate sites you have to pay for Legal, at least the Us ones
[QUOTE=Madman_Andre;17722669]No, he'd just troll us with his own faked controversial opinion and then argue with everyone for the next ten pages until he can wank off.[/QUOTE]
You do realise Lankist is actually George W. Bush?
When it comes to patents, this all comes down to how you tell people.
If you make them sign a contract stating they cannot tell another soul about a new idea or innovation you've thought of and are going to create, then if they try to sell the idea to anyone else or run with that idea, then legal action can be taken against them. Having a successful patent on a new product will give you a real competitive edge for a while until the patent expires or someone else manages to make their own version of the product.
If you just blurt out your idea at random to anyone, then you cannot patent the idea anymore as its now in the public domain.
Since we don't have exact records of what each side argued, and since we we're not business experts, none of us can really make a real sound idea of who's truly right, but my guess is that it all has to do with what's in the contracts.
Owned, goddam companies and their money making bullshit scams "I WANT MY ISLAND, BUT THIS GUYS SELLING SOME SOFTWARE HE BOUGHT FROM US" q.q
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
