TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

"Magic Words" Trump User Rights: Ninth Circuit Ruling in Vernor v. Autodesk

50 点作者 keyist超过 14 年前

8 条评论

dctoedt超过 14 年前
1. It's not over yet.<p>2. The facts in this case are not insignificant: An Autodesk customer upgraded its installation, paying a heavily-discounted price (~87% discount) for copies of the new version. <i>It then sold its copies of the old version to the "reseller," along with a handwritten copy of the license codes.</i> See the court's recital of the facts at PDF page 6 of <a href="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/09/10/09-35969.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/09/10/09...</a>. I wonder how many HN readers would want <i>their</i> customers doing that?
评论 #1688479 未加载
评论 #1689354 未加载
10ren超过 14 年前
Logically, book vendors could impose similar restrictions with similar language and achieve the same result viz. circumvent the first sale doctrine.<p>There's a question: would anyone buy such a book? If you were offered identical books, one you could resell and one you couldn't but it was half the price - which would you buy?<p>I don't know the legal history of the first sale doctrine, but I assume it's mostly based on public policy, and to support things that people were already doing: reselling, lending etc. An interesting data point is that software in the form of video games is regularly resold and lent.<p>IIRC, a distinguishing feature of the autodesk software in this case is that it is very high-end commercial software, and thus not a consumer product. Buyers and sellers in business transactions are generally assumed by the courts to know what they're doing, and so the courts tend not to intervene with whatever bargain they've struck. That is: this is likely inapplicable to consumer software like video games.
评论 #1688549 未加载
评论 #1688436 未加载
评论 #1688568 未加载
pbhjpbhj超过 14 年前
This is huge. A US court decision clarifying that companies can disclaim there product from being a product and instead turn it into a license for use - making resale tortuous, for example.
评论 #1688442 未加载
shasta超过 14 年前
With the increasing ubiquity of "online activation", the legal status of the first sale doctrine is of decreasing importance, anyway. There is a satisfying (if not practical) way to fix this problem: require that all such commercial licenses, sales, and contracts be between transferable entities. Anytime you have contracts between what are effectively anonymous parties, where the particular individuals are not essential to the transaction, require that the roles in the contract be transferable by whomever owns the rights of that role. In other words, we could fix this problem with a capability based society.
评论 #1689098 未加载
jrockway超过 14 年前
The more I think about this, the more it seems like the old email signature "by reading this, you owe me a million dollars" is actually enforceable.<p>In the US, nobody has any obligation to pay me a million dollars. Similarly, a copyright holder has no right to regulate what happens to their CD-ROM after they legally sell it to someone.<p>But the court ruled that a piece of paper included with the CD-ROM that was not required to fully use that CD gave Autodesk some new rights and created the obligation for the original purchaser to ask Autodesk for permission to perform an otherwise-legal activity, selling the disk. So it follows that a little message that you <i>do</i> read at the end of my emails should be equally enforceable.<p>Actually, I think this decision is on its way to reversal.
njharman超过 14 年前
Ok, I'm not selling the software I'm selling the <i>license</i>. Or, I'm selling the media and packaging not software, no way.<p>I'm sure it's not the case but more absurd things are held up regularly. Just need expensive lawyers to argue the point with a straight face and earnest demeanor.
aidenn0超过 14 年前
Couldn't you just sell "a bunch of shiny plastic discs that may or may not have software on them" and not run into this issue? I'm assuming these discs were printed by Autodesk. Copyright doesn't apply if you're not making a copy of anything, right?
评论 #1688711 未加载
tylerritchie超过 14 年前
"By endorsing this check you agree that all previous and future licenses sold by Autodesk to any individual, business or other entity afford licensee all rights and privileges under the first sale doctrine..."<p>It seems like buying direct via check might be able to cause all kinds of problems. Seeing as how language clearly matters more than common sense.
评论 #1689353 未加载