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

[kansur0]

I am very happy with the courts decision. What this will change is the way software companies do business.

Before this decision software companies didn't care much about supporting customers once they have your money. Now if you are unhappy with a piece of software you can sell it. What this does is give the consumer the power to BUY a piece of software and if they are unhappy with the features and support of the software they can sell it. This will make software companies more accountable for the quality of their product and will be more likely to want to give customers better support.

This will also make BUYING SOFTWARE (not pirating it) a much better option because there will now be more value in the purchase. There will also be more availability on the open market for "used" software meaning open box software. This again will reduce the price of software.
The consumer now has a clear right to ownership of the software they purchase. The software companies will hopefully now treat us with more respect and not just laugh at us when we complain when the product we have purchased from them is broken. We can now demand to be treated fairly or we will continue to sell back the software to the open market at a reduced price until your software no longer has value...BECAUSE IT SUCKS!!!

 

[jabliese]

[citation][nom]groveborn[/nom]It is important to note that this ruling does not impact the license agreement. The software company still has the right to restrict the use of the software as it likes. This only means that the software owner can resell it. EULA still stands . The question is: Can the software company prevent you from installing your software on certain types of machines? Hmmm...[/citation]

Except that Autodesk put the resale restrictions in the EULA. Read the last paragraph, "Autodesk License" = EULA, the judge was not impressed.

 

[zak_mckraken]

Like geoffs said, the best analogy in this case would be a book. When your purchase a book, you do own it. However, you cannot go to the nearest copy machine and make multiple copies of the book for your family and friends. You can lend it to them, or give it to them if you will, but that implies you won't have it anymore for yourself.

 

[gmcboot]

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.

You don't own the the patents or design features of the software either. You just own the use of it. And by the way, I can build a toyota and sell it. I can go out and buy ever part of that car, used, build it and sell it as a TOYOTA. It would cost 3 times as much as the new car.

As for the software, you own the disc and the number of licenses purchased with that disk. You can sell it if you wish. Thats all this ruling states.

 

[cookoy]

Maybe the ruling applies to the specific Autodesk license in
the case. The court interprets the transfer of the Autodesk
license as also a transfer of ownership. But only because
of the way this particular Autodesk licensing terms were
spelled out. So it may not apply to softwares in general.

 

[cptnjarhead]

"Caveat Venditor"

 

[asjflask]

http/arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2008/05/court-smacks-autodesk-affirms-right-to-sell-used-software.ars

has more facts in it that can clarify a lot of things that this article cannot.

 

[masop]

[citation][nom]Mundus33[/nom]ability not right* correction in first paragraph[/citation]
...and another grammar nazi strikes again! j/k 🙂 Hehe.

 

[asgallant]

Having read over the Ars Technica article, it would seem that the case centers around the means and method of the original transaction from the developer to the user. Autodesk claims that they license their software, while using terminology appropriate for a straight up purchase. The court ruled that by using terms like "buy" in the transaction, Autodesk abrogated terms in the license prohibiting resale.

This ruling changes little, however, as the fix to the problem is for Autodesk to change the terminology in the transaction process to reflect licensing rather than ownership. Software companies and distributors will have to clarify the language at the point of sale, but I don't think this will have any other effect. Consumers have the right to resell something they buy and transfer the lease on something that they lease, but licensed products can be restricted in nearly any manner - this ruling doesn't change that.

 

[millerm84]

I just want to go back over the XP upgrade and OEM issues.

Unless things have changed from XP to Vista/7 upgrade disks, you can install a clean upgrade by booting to the upgrade disk and then inserting the old disk, and enter the upgrade disk's license key. I've not run a Windows Vista or 7 upgrade so I am assuming above procedure to still be true. However, if that is still the case then how is it illegal to sell my license for XP after the upgrade? I never entered the license key for XP just the disk, which carries a copy of the terms of use but is not the license, so how does an upgrade use the old license in that sense?

What I'm seeing from the article is that once you purchase a program you can sell it at will as long as you are not keeping a copy for yourself. Vernor is not a licensed reseller of AutoCad, but somehow obtained several copies and was selling them. The courts' ruling here states that after a software license is purchased the user can transfer said software license at any time regardless of wither or not they are a reseller. Like Vernor was doing. AutoCad really didn't have a case anyway as Vernor may have been circumventing the EULA completely as I doubt that he installed and then uninstalled each copy of AutoCad he opened, therefore, never agreeing to the EULA in the first place.

The real impact of this ruling, if it stands, is that software providers can no longer attach a "Not for Resale" tag to their products, including OEMs. Once a customer buys a piece of software the software company can only stipulate its user limits, not its ownership. Copyright laws protect the author/software companies from me making copies of their work and distributing them to the masses. This ruling protects consumers from software companies' attempt to tell me what I can and cannot do with a product I've purchased.

 

[geoffs]

[citation][nom]millerm84[/nom]I just want to go back over the XP upgrade and OEM issues.Unless things have changed from XP to Vista/7 upgrade disks, you can install a clean upgrade by booting to the upgrade disk and then inserting the old disk, and enter the upgrade disk's license key. I've not run a Windows Vista or 7 upgrade so I am assuming above procedure to still be true. However, if that is still the case then how is it illegal to sell my license for XP after the upgrade? I never entered the license key for XP just the disk, which carries a copy of the terms of use but is not the license, so how does an upgrade use the old license in that sense?

What I'm seeing from the article is that once you purchase a program you can sell it at will as long as you are not keeping a copy for yourself. .... The real impact of this ruling, if it stands, is that software providers can no longer attach a "Not for Resale" tag to their products, including OEMs. Once a customer buys a piece of software the software company can only stipulate its user limits, not its ownership. Copyright laws protect the author/software companies from me making copies of their work and distributing them to the masses. This ruling protects consumers from software companies' attempt to tell me what I can and cannot do with a product I've purchased.[/citation]No, you've read way too much into this ruling. This ruling does not strike down EULAs, it simply states that the buyer did in fact purchase a copy of the software, and is free to resell that software under the "First Sale" doctrine. EULA is a contract, and like all contracts, it must be "reasonable" and "equitable" to all parties. Portions which are not may be found to be invalid and unenforceable. However, NFR and Upgrade editions are sold under preferential terms (free or discounted price) in exchange for various restrictions. In the case of NFR, the restriction is that you can't resell it. In the case of an upgrade, the terms are that you must own a qualifying product from which you're upgrading, and you must either sell the the qualifying product with the upgrade, or you can sell the qualifying product, but must discontinue using the upgrade. In the latter case, you can still resell the upgrade to another qualified buyer.

There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. The fact that you were given preferential pricing makes the restrictions "reasonable" and "equitable".

 

[Guest]

I am very glad to hear this, as I am sick of buying software, including games, that can be disputed later as not actually mine. Pretty much if the company decides they don't like me, they can revoke my right to use their program, and this extends to hardware as well such as game consoles. If you connect your console online and have done something to it, they can "brick" your console, effectively destroying it, which should by all means constitute vandalism. I know this sounds odd, but here is a simple little logic game to help understand how I see it, hopefully this makes sense, and this applies to games, programs, software, game consoles, etc.:

I go out and buy a stuffed Mickey Mouse doll from the DIsney store (I love Disney btw, no offense meant). I paid for it with my own money, and I have a receipt proving I bought it. Now, I only bought one, so it doesn't give me the right to go buy a bunch of fabric and start making my own and selling them, but I DO own the one I bought. I could go buy ten more, and then sell those MIckeys to people online, or in a store, or wherever I want because I obtained them legally. I could take the one doll that I bought, and rip it to shreds, draw faces on it, install a flashlight in it, bleach it and dye it purple with green dots, it doesn't matter because I BOUGHT IT, I didn't buy a license to carry a Mickey doll around with me, that would be stupid and absurd. I bought the doll. It doesn't matter that it came from a factory that cost millions to build, I bought my one Mickey doll legitimately for the price that the manufacturer decided on and should be able to do what I want with it. Would anyone think it was even remotely fair (or legal) if Disney suddenly showed up at my house one day and forced me to give my Mickey back or destroy it in front of me or sue me for misuse because I bleached it and dyed it purple and green? No! That would be absurd!

That being said, if I walk out of a store with a receipt having bought software, or a console, or a computer, it should be mine to do whatever I want with. If I want to make a backup of something I own, that is my right. If I want to take the risk of "modding" a console and purposely voiding the warranty, as should be my right, I own it and should not be punished for it by having my item destroyed by the company that makes it.

Could anyone tell me the difference between buying a Mickey doll and buying a computer program?