3 ms·

Non-transferable licenses should be made illegal.

• hga 16y ago
  If they're "established" through contracts of adhesion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_form_contract http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_form_contract) absolutely, and we're expecting/hoping the 9th will uphold the district's summary judgment, at least in principle (if they get into some of the "where do you draw the line" stuff, they might remand it to the district court for a finding of fact, they're only supposed to make findings of law). However, let's say I spend a month with an Oracle salesman and we cut a negotiated $$$ deal that's expressed in a normal contract; that's a very different thing from the sale of a shrink-rapped package like these AutoDesk copies. I don't find those unconscionable (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconscionability http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconscionability).
  • Daniel_Newby 16y ago
    Indeed! The importance of this distinction is too often ignored in press articles. One complication is whether it is a shrink-wrap license bought in a store (therefore with reasonable opportunity to read the terms) or a shrink-wrap license bought by title/SKU# and delivered by mail. The former would appear to be more enforceable.
    • dhume 16y ago
      One complication is whether it is a shrink-wrap license bought in a store (therefore with reasonable opportunity to read the terms) or a shrink-wrap license bought by title/SKU# and delivered by mail. The former would appear to be more enforceable. In my experience, it's usually been the other way around. When I order online, I often get to read the license on the web site, whereas when I buy in a brick-and-mortar store, I cannot see the license terms without opening the package, which I am not allowed to do before buying it (hence the term "shrink-wrap license").