On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 20:59:01 -0700, Gene Fitz wrote:
> Exactly, and if Microsoft stipulates that it will only allow you to use
> THEIR liscense on one computer. They can. it is THEIR software, you are
> only leasing the software.
Actually it's a very gray area in the courts. Some have ruled one way,
some another. For an example of one ruling opposing the idea that you're
just buying a license:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine
In 1997 in Novell v. Network Trade Center 25 F. Supp. 2d 1218 (C.D. Utah
1997)[1] purchaser is an "owner" by way of sale and is entitled to the
use and enjoyment of the software with the same rights as exist in the
purchase of any other good. Said software transactions do not merely
constitute the sale of a license to use the software. The shrinkwrap
license included with the software is therefore invalid as against such
a purchaser insofar as it purports to maintain title to the software in
the copyright owner. Under the first sale doctrine, NTC was able to
redistribute the software to end-users without copyright infringement.
Transfer of a copyrighted work that is subject to the first sale
doctrine extinguishes all distribution rights of the copyright holder
upon transfer of title.
As discussed in the article, the later DMCA has further confused the
issue. It allows copyright owners to impose arbitrary conditions of use,
but there are some conflicting rulings over whether the DMCA can legally
override the First Sale Doctrine or certain other consumer protections:
The first-sale doctrine as it relates to computer software is an area of
legal confusion. Software publishers claim the first-sale doctrine does
not apply because software is licensed, not sold, under the terms of an
End User License Agreement (EULA). The courts have issued contrary
decisions regarding the first-sale rights of consumers. Bauer & Cie. v.
O'Donnell and Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus are two US Supreme Court cases
that deal with copyright holders trying to enforce terms beyond the
scope of copyright and patent, but calling it a license. Many state
courts have also ruled that a sale of software is indeed a sale of goods
under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) at the point where funds are
exchanged for the physical copy of the software. The licensed and not
sold argument is held mostly in the 8th and 7th Circuits while other
circuits tend to support the opposite, thus leading to conflicting court
opinions such as seen in the 3rd Circuit Step-Saver Data Systems, Inc.
v. Wyse Technology and fifth circuit Vault Corp. v. Quaid Software as
opposed to the 8th Circuit Blizzard v. BNETD (Davidson & Associates v.
Internet Gateway Inc (2004)), which have not been resolved by the
Supreme Court.