U.S. Court: Software is Owned, Not Licensed

[Eggrenade]

[citation][nom]gmcboot[/nom].ummmm I guess you don't own your PC, Cell Phone, or your car. All of those items cost millions and in some cases BILLIONS of dollars to create. When you buy your Dell laptop, you own it. You Toyota, you own it. When you buy Windows 7, you own that COPY of Windows 7. If you sell THAT copy, then Microsoft looses nothing. Corporations create products and unless they are renting or leasing that product as a service, when you pay for it you own it. Where is Judge Judy when you need her![/citation]

Apparently you didn't read the second half of my post where I explained that you should own a copy of the software.

Also when you buy a Toyota, you don't own the design features and patents that make that car work or the right to copy those features and build your own Toyotas to sell. You only own the one piece of metal that you drove off the lot.

 

[Netherscourge]

[citation][nom]trinix[/nom]I don't think it works like that. You still use the xp license.[/citation]

But I'm selling my Windows XP Installation disc. Shouldn't that license transfer WITH the sale to the new owner? Windows XP will not be on my PC's anymopre - Windows 7 will be.

 

[precariousgray]

Well, it's good to know that "ownership" implies ACTUAL ownership, not some fantasy legal interpretation thereof, and that, therefore, given the article states "Software is Owned," that means I should be able to do as I please with the software in question -- such as copying it a million times for distribution. If I am unable to do this, then the software is not actually owned, and therefore, it seems Toms Hardware editors' horrible writing skills strike again.

I look forward to many thumbs down for my rational interpretation of factual information.

 

[domenic]

I Agree. If the software is truely owned, then it can be modified, cracked, copied, and resold in any shape or form from the "owner"

 

[matt87_50]

I think it's fair that they can limit the amount of machines you put the software on. You don't buy a car, then duplicate it so everyone in the family can have one. and really, the only distinction between doing this and just putting it up on a torrent is that you're "only giving it to your other computers... and your family... and your really good friend..."

which really isn't a distinction at all.

also, I don't think the article was saying you can't license software, what they were saying is that if you sell a license to someone, they OWN that license, just like they would own any other product sold. this gives them the right to sell THEIR license to another person, which - just like any other product - means you no longer own the license, the person you sold it to does. however, I don't think they were having a go at the other terms of a license - including install limits - basically what autodesk was trying to do was give out a "license to use a license", which the court naturally found was stupid.

 

[koga73]

wow, the software companies arn't gonna let this decesion stay. And, with XP... I bought it and have installed it over 20 times WITHOUT any crack. The secret? When your 5 licenses expires, don't auto-connect to the internet. Instead call microsofts automated phone service. It works every time! I've only been asked once or twice if I had used the key before and I just say no and they give me the activation key.

 

[pat_ang]

A car cost billions to design and a lot to buy. It's not licensed to me. The same with the hardware. It really doesn't matter how much it cost to develope the CPU, once I buy it as a consumer it's mine. To claim that software is any different is idiotic. They provided a product I said, sure, bought it and now it's mine. It's their job to make up what they spent to research it by selling enough of them. Software companies however seems to be of the idea that they're only licensing their product to us, we don't own them but they don't take any responsibility of them if they cause our hardware to malefunction, other then patching it. They can't have it both way.

Naturally that means that if I buy a copy I only have the rights to use it on one machine, but it doesn't matter if I copy it in return in order to have a backup. Some people abuse it and sell their copies to others, some people abuse it and tries to install it on other systems. It's up to the manufacturer to decide whether or not they should create some kind of 'block' to stop a user from doing that. Other then that It's my copy and it remains that until I throw it away or sell it.

 

[Guest]

well this is good news for psystar in their case against apple. it mean they were right and apple was wrong.

 

[Mundus33]

All I can think is that this is a good thing because this might prevent more Spore-like and Mass Effect-like DRM from being created since we have the right to say they are limiting the use of something we own.

Not to say there probably isn't a way around it taking into consideration that large corporations probably can get out of a lot of stuff if they try hard enough and throw enough money at it but at least this might be a strong deterrent.

Also whats with all the negativity no matter what this is good for the consumer and unless you have some kind of financial ties to the software companies this doesn't affect you much and even if you are it doesn't affect you much since it was never illegal to sell software that you owned. All this really changes is that the software companies can't get on our backs about selling the software we bought.

 

[Mundus33]

ability not right* correction in first paragraph

 

[tmike]

[citation][nom]Netherscourge[/nom]But I'm selling my Windows XP Installation disc. Shouldn't that license transfer WITH the sale to the new owner? Windows XP will not be on my PC's anymopre - Windows 7 will be.[/citation]

An upgrade does not give you an additional license; it supplants your existing license. If you were to sell your (full, not upgrade) XP disk, it would be unlicensed. That's why you didn't have to pay full price for Win 7.

 

[Montezuma]

[citation][nom]smithereen[/nom]I'm not sure I like the tone of this article, especially the "ridiculous gobs of money". Software costs "ridiculous gobs of money" to develop and support. I'm not even too happy about the "transfer of license" ruling; unlike most second-hand items, used software is just as functional as new software. There would be little to no incentive for a user to buy a new copy of used software was available. Autodesk should be entitled to a percentage at minimum.[/citation]

A percentage of what? A percentage of the resale? They are adding nothing to the product, so they deserve no more money for the product. Older software may work the exact same as it did from day one, but that is a double-edge sword. There may be better software, or that software might have no use on the day it is sold.

If I purchase 10 new cars, then resale every one of them, the car manufacturer has no right to demand more money from me or the new owner. That is just asinine, as is your comment.

 

[Guest]

@pat_ang
you really did bring up a good point, people do abuse the software licenses by not playing fair as you mentioned. The question still remains because of this, should Microsoft and the other companies still be allowed to use DRM to protect their software from that kind of activity.

The new ruling now lets (honest)legit retailers and etc to sell software each with a unique license but not exactly allow you to use the software and sell it to the next fellow as if it was some drug addict sharing needles.

Nothing really changes, like most people even really play by the conditions anyway.

 

[kingnoobe]

learn to read before you post. "Timothy Vernor who was selling legitimate copies of Autodesk software".

Now wtf said anything about being able to copy and sell the copies. That's a completely different argument. A car is yours when you buy it! That doesn't mean you can go around making copies of said car and sell them. But that does mean you can buy cars and sell them.

 

[geoffs]

[citation][nom]Netherscourge[/nom]So I can choose to SELL my copy old of Windows XP after I upgrade to Windows 7?[/citation]Depends upon how you got your XP and how you got Win7. If you purchased a retail XP (transferable separately from the machine), and you purchased a full (not upgrade) version of Win7, then your XP would be available for sell.

If you purchased an OEM version of XP, then you can't sell it separately from the machine with which it was purchased.

If you purchase an upgrade version of Win7, then you're "still using" your Win XP.

 

[geoffs]

[citation][nom]precariousgray[/nom]Well, it's good to know that "ownership" implies ACTUAL ownership, not some fantasy legal interpretation thereof, and that, therefore, given the article states "Software is Owned," that means I should be able to do as I please with the software in question -- such as copying it a million times for distribution. If I am unable to do this, then the software is not actually owned, and therefore, it seems Toms Hardware editors' horrible writing skills strike again.I look forward to many thumbs down for my rational interpretation of factual information.[/citation]No, that's not what owning software means. You own the software like you own a book. You can lend the software to another (as long as one one person can use it at a time), you can sell the software (and thus no longer use it), etc, just as you can do with a book. You CAN NOT copy and distribute it, that's a copyright violation (in the case of the book or of the software).

 

[geoffs]

[citation][nom]njkid3[/nom]well this is good news for psystar in their case against apple. it mean they were right and apple was wrong.[/citation]
[citation][nom]domenic[/nom]I Agree. If the software is truely owned, then it can be modified, cracked, copied, and resold in any shape or form from the "owner"[/citation]
No, in both cases you're dealing with copyright violations, which still apply. Go read U.S. Copyright law

 

[supervine]

מצלמות, מצלמות נסתרות, כרטיס הקלטה, DVR, מצלמות אבטחה, מצלמות אלחוטיות, שנאי למצלמה, כרטיס טלויזיה, זיכרון, זיכרון למחשב, זיכרון למחשב נייד, DDR, SDRAM, SODIMM, מתאמים, כבלים, מטען למחשב נייד, קורא כרטיסים, בלוטות, BLUETOOTH, טכנאי מחשבים, טכנאי רשתות, בודק כבלים, כבל רשת, RJ45, RJ-45, לוחץ כבלים, בודק לוחות אם, ריגול, האזנה, משקל תכשיטים, גילוי האזנה, חוסם סלולרי, מצלמה מוסלקת, צלחת האזנה

 

[Honis]

Hey Kevin,

STOP WRITING ARTICLES WITH IDIOTIC MISLEADING TITLES!!! It's only making the rest of the writers on Tom's look bad.

The court ruled that the Software and the License are BOTH owned by the purchaser. The ruling does not state licensing of software is full of crap (like your articles) and out the window (your job soon I hope).

Recommended Title: U.S. Court: Software and License are Owned by the Purchaser

 

[Guest]

so if i buy a car and ten years later there is a recall for saftey reasons the car seller is responsible. Why is Microsoft not responsible for win 95, 98, xp even if saftey is concerned.