wraggster
September 13th, 2010, 19:09
An appeals court in the US has ruled in favour of developer Autodesk in a reversal of judgement on a long running case involving the sale of licences of design product AutoCAD, deciding that the software's EULA clearly states that the purchaser is buying a non-transferable licence rather than the product itself.
The judgement was based on a specific clause in the software's End User Licence Agreement, which pointed out that what was being sold was a licence to use the product, rather than the product itself - a clause often found in the EULAs of videogames.
The judgement, reported by Gamasutra, is the latest in a case which involves Timothy Vernor, who bought several copies of AutoCAD from the office sale of an architecture firm to sell via his eBay business.
At retail, AutoCAD licences usually sell for around $4000. Vernor had been offered the software, complete with licence keys, for sale on the auction site, which attracted the attentions of Autodesk's legal team. Autodesk pointed out that, not only did the EULA expressly forbid the transferral of any licences to a new user, any user upgrading the software to a newer version would have to destroy any existing, outdated copies, a condition which should apply to the copies which Verner had taken possession of.
Verner claimed that, as he hadn't signed any licence agreements with Autodesk, he wasn't party to that agreement and could sell the licences on as he saw fit, citing America's First Sale Doctrine, which allows individuals to re-sell copyrighted work . The resulting court case was settled in 2008, the judge ruling in Vernor's favour that the software and been purchased, and not licences, and was therefore legally re-saleable.
Last week, that judgement was reversed, in a decision which could have far-reaching ramifications for many products which are covered by a similar EULA, such as videogames and other software.
"We hold today that a software user is a licensee rather than an owner of a copy where the copyright owner (1) specifies that the user is granted a license; (2) significantly restricts the user's ability to transfer the software; and (3) imposes notable use restrictions," said the judge presiding over the case.
Although the ruling is limited to the US court, and only applies to EULAs which specify that a licence rather than a product is being purchased, certain EULAs already in effect specify very similar conditions. Electronic Arts' PC EULA, for example states that: "You have purchased a license to the Software and your rights are subject to this License", which would appear to prevent any legal resale.
Game rental services could also be affected by the judgement, as licences cannot be transferred even temporarily to a new user.
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2010-09-13-us-court-of-appeal-reverses-decision-on-sales-of-used-software
The judgement was based on a specific clause in the software's End User Licence Agreement, which pointed out that what was being sold was a licence to use the product, rather than the product itself - a clause often found in the EULAs of videogames.
The judgement, reported by Gamasutra, is the latest in a case which involves Timothy Vernor, who bought several copies of AutoCAD from the office sale of an architecture firm to sell via his eBay business.
At retail, AutoCAD licences usually sell for around $4000. Vernor had been offered the software, complete with licence keys, for sale on the auction site, which attracted the attentions of Autodesk's legal team. Autodesk pointed out that, not only did the EULA expressly forbid the transferral of any licences to a new user, any user upgrading the software to a newer version would have to destroy any existing, outdated copies, a condition which should apply to the copies which Verner had taken possession of.
Verner claimed that, as he hadn't signed any licence agreements with Autodesk, he wasn't party to that agreement and could sell the licences on as he saw fit, citing America's First Sale Doctrine, which allows individuals to re-sell copyrighted work . The resulting court case was settled in 2008, the judge ruling in Vernor's favour that the software and been purchased, and not licences, and was therefore legally re-saleable.
Last week, that judgement was reversed, in a decision which could have far-reaching ramifications for many products which are covered by a similar EULA, such as videogames and other software.
"We hold today that a software user is a licensee rather than an owner of a copy where the copyright owner (1) specifies that the user is granted a license; (2) significantly restricts the user's ability to transfer the software; and (3) imposes notable use restrictions," said the judge presiding over the case.
Although the ruling is limited to the US court, and only applies to EULAs which specify that a licence rather than a product is being purchased, certain EULAs already in effect specify very similar conditions. Electronic Arts' PC EULA, for example states that: "You have purchased a license to the Software and your rights are subject to this License", which would appear to prevent any legal resale.
Game rental services could also be affected by the judgement, as licences cannot be transferred even temporarily to a new user.
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2010-09-13-us-court-of-appeal-reverses-decision-on-sales-of-used-software