John Dollus Posted May 22, 2008 Share Posted May 22, 2008 http://aecnews.com/news/2008/05/21/3414.aspx Some of you may remember this when it first went to the courts - it's not over yet but looks promising. Saw it on cgtalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vizwhiz Posted May 22, 2008 Share Posted May 22, 2008 so if someone at my company hands me software To install and i install it registering it To my own name Then can i legally re-sell it? (if so party, party, party) if not just another bummer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernest Burden III Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 Autodesk...has ignored the terms of the License itself. The Autodesk License is expressly “nontransferable.” … Autodesk does not explain how a nontransferable license can bind subsequent transferees.” That's interesting. Read that one way and it says that a re-sold software product becomes free of the EULA if the EULA declares itself non-transferable. I'm sure Autodesk and Microsoft can argue their way out of that one. How, will also be interesting. I don't think anyone is thinking its right to be able to terminate someone else's ownership rights in IP by transferring a product to someone else. But if some of these EULAs have gone beyond reasonable and legally-defensible terms, perhaps that is the unintended consequence of an over-reaching legal document. Courtrooms are just gambling halls without the free drinks. You can't predict what will happen. Or happen next round. This is Federal District Court--I think there's one level above, Appellate Court, before the top level, Supreme Court. An appeal sounds likely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJLynn Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 That's just round 1. The court refused to issue summary judgment, which is a pre-trial finding that would have essentially said "your case doesn't pass my laugh test." This doesn't make the case has been tried yet and doesn't affect the final judgment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antisthenes Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 round #1: humanity 1 corporatism 0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Alexander Posted May 24, 2008 Share Posted May 24, 2008 Humanity 0- Human nature 1 Did I read correctly this dispute is over 2 copies of AutoCad14? What is AutoDesk Worried about? Always felt that AUtoDesk very much understands the limitations and possible infringements of it's appraoch to thier Elua. The Eula is a boldly stated 'agreement' to fear people into not breaking the agreement and thus achieving at least a percieved level of finaincial protection. LOL over sales of Autocad14 hehe. Yes allowing a contrary precidence of action to go unanswered is good enough but It seems a can of worms is being opened for them. What was the seller thinking AutoCad14 ohhhh he's gonna be able to live high on the hog after that sale on ebay, LOL. He got shut down for a month, no more ebay sales aka his livelyhood. Give everybody the benefit of doubt but isn't that like selling a book about the world being flat as a science textbook? Doesn't seem to be a level of 'smart' in any of this. But hey if the evil autodesk EULAs get the measuring stick of 'fair' trade practices put to it I'll be satisfied. Though I doubt it will They'll back off or slip out before they let anyone take the monster/ghost out of the machine, imho. BTW the 20 page finding on Autodesks request to dimiss the cliams against them....is some very interesting reading ;P Please tell me I read wrong, please Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antisthenes Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 when a human rights violation is overcome doesn't that benefit the whole of humanity? Sure it may be human nature to do what ever is possible pushing the limits and achieving new freedoms like we see happening here in this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJLynn Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 Restricting the sale of property is a human rights violation? I'm surprised that you're an Empiricist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lyca Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 Restricting the sale of property is a human rights violation? I'm surprised that you're an Empiricist if Autodesk does not want people to sell the product they bought, than maybe Autodesk should rent them. Anyway, as i got my v-ray copy i read on the including contract also that i have no right to resell it to an other person, the only place where people told me that i don't have the right to what i want with my ownership was in Communist Cuba, but we leaving in capitalist place here, so i do not understand this restriction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antisthenes Posted June 9, 2008 Share Posted June 9, 2008 (edited) challenge it? I don't think they would take legal action out of eastern Europe (plus they are cool cats) and after the autodesk ruling realize they are in the wrong many license agreements need revision now.. rent.. haha what a sad day that would be when we loose that much control. 1984 anybody? the human rights issue is that of not only 1st sale. but that ideas can not be owned according to the laws of mathematics. Lessing and Doctorov and the Pirate Party sweeden say it far better than i could in 1 post. Edited June 9, 2008 by Antisthenes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now