Posted on 09/13/2010 1:35:31 PM PDT by Still Thinking
Auto makers LIKE used car sales, because people don’t buy extra cars, so they’re either going to run their existing car into the ground (which takes a long time) or sell a car when they’re tired of it (usually much quicker). And once somebody sells their car unless they’re converting to public transportation they’re going to be buying another one.
The reason software companies hate resale is because there’s no hardware. Most software can be run without the CD, and even if the company builds a CD check there’s tons of ways around it. So I can install software and sell the disk to somebody and still use the software. So selling it just means more people using it without paying the company, and it gives me no compelling reason to buy the next version.
One of the arguments in the case was the software that was sold at the garage sale should have been destroyed or returned as part of a company wide software upgrade agreement with Autodesk. If that were the case, one would think there would be a not for resale sticker or something etched on the box..
Old, what about the software that is now required to operate any car? Can’t function without it. If I recall correctly there was a suit about the software and the right of independent service providers to have access to the software which is required to make the vehicle function.
Don’t recall the outcome, but must have had broad implications.
Actually movies and software are different according to the courts. At least they have fought over the colorization of black and white movies and parents wanting to edit out objectional scenes. On the other hand apparently once you buy a book, you are free to tear pages out that you don’t like.
Crazy times we live in, all because congress refused to follow the constitution on copyright and patent expiration law. All to protect Mickey Mouse from being used in Porno, which as I recall was available 60s ago.
If I recall, most software has a seal, that reads if you open this seal, you are agreeing to the license agreement, so now I guess all you have to do is read the warning on the seal, which means every box of software I pick up from the store shelf is now unsalable. Cool.
The death of common sense leads to this nonsense.
First, I would say that this decisions seems - on its face - farcical. But, like I said, it's really not my area of law, so I'm trying to not comments on the merits of the case.
Second, I do remember that lawsuit you're describing. It had something to do with just reading or accessing the software with 3rd party provided equipment, and that was being challenged by the manufacturers. I don't know how that lawsuit was resolved, or even if it was resolved, yet.
I do a lot of software as well, but it tends to be custom one-off stuff, so it's a whole other perspective both for me and for my customers than large or small-volume retail software.
The broken seal agreeing to license terms thing has been thrown out by the courts multiple times. Largely because the license terms can’t be read without breaking the seal and you can’t make people agree to something they can’t possibly have read. That doesn’t stop companies from putting those stickers on, but much like disclaimers those stickers are completely unenforceable.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.