[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Utterly imbecile pinky communist Ninth Circuit 'judges' (Vernor scan

From: ajawamnet
Subject: Re: Utterly imbecile pinky communist Ninth Circuit 'judges' (Vernor scandalous ruling)
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 06:15:57 -0800 (PST)
User-agent: G2/1.0

Here's my take - this is from a post I did on a CAD/CAM usergroup

PLEASE NOTE where i mention the concept that i'm FORCED INTO A
PARTNERSHIP with them.

So that means that if (heaven forbid) I design something that kills a
bunch of people on the Metro - they are a partner.
They're dismissal of liability in shrinkwrap EULAs is brought into

If i recall (and I did the first interface for the PC CGA cards back
in 1982 with DOS 1.1 machines when they were new so I've been doing
this a while) this was one of the paramount reasons for EULAs-
companies like Autodesk didn't want the onus of a building falling
down because some clown like me bought Acad and thought they could
design a skyscraper

Maybe that'd get them thinking... I really don't think they can have
it both ways.

Check out my marketturd site - why I like Dongles

As I mention in my Why i like Dongles rant, this is a real issue - not
like a
movie or recording or text - I use these products to develop my IP. I
access to it as well as anyone I "sell" my IP to.

For instance, I've been using ACAD since ver 2.x - up until 2004. No
need to
change most of what I do is PCB stuff. This older version I can
install and
unlock without interaction with adesk.

But I've alos used Solidworks since version 95... still have my old 96
disk. I have thousands of sldprt/sldasm files (older are just prt and
extensions) in my comtech directory.

I was using 2006 for years - again a typical file-type unlock with no
interaction needed to reinstall.

For me to try and convert these to a neutral format before selling my
IP/business would be nearly impossible. And since I had to convert to
SW2010 -
I'm stuck and so is anyone that I try and sell my assets to. And these
formats lose the parametric ability.

If there's a distinct advantage to using the native format for my IP,
then I
should have the right to include those tools in the sale of my assets
along with
the native format files.

EULA waivers commonly have no guarantee of "quiet enjoyment" as per
the law
publication from Fenwick. Type Microsoft and EULA in Google - search
for quiet

One could argue that end users sign these under duress; without legal
representation. Not sure how's that fly tho.

I figure what may happen is that a high profile judge on an even
higher profile
case will have his PC die one weekend right before a major ruling is
to take
place. His nephew will come over to replace the components and he'll
get "locked
out" of his own document and system when it reboots with the new
hardware. He'll
be late with his decision; the zillion news trucks outside his home
will get the
story, and maybe public perception of this will change.

One can dream, eh?


I see a lot of the replies are about selecting a tool chain that works
and is
intuitive to the particular user. I spent years getting to the point
that I can
actually get products thru the door quickly and accurately - I do
about 130
designs a year, mainly EDA stuff but 70% of the time it's also

Beyond getting proficient with these tools, the thing that really
helps is
having thousands of libraries, macros, configs that allow me to turn

And this is my point - and the one I'm trying to make - that I now
have been
forced to enter into a partnership with these companies.

Especially companies like Solidworks that used to use a standard non-
specific license and have since switched to a "cookie jar" license
that requires
their server to be up, their ability to perform in the future.

Especially with solidworks - you cannot save back to previous

I talked to Alibre yesterday. I was told that the license process
locks the
particular install to a particular machine. To reinstall after a
failure would require interaction with them to use my data - my IP.

So any future use of that program and my ability to perform,is now
dependent on
their ability to perform. My data, libraries and such are now locked
into their
format. If they go out of business, change corporate direction, get
etc... my work is lost.

The reason i bring this up is that i've been stung by this. In fact,
one of my
patents has data files that I can not open. No translators from any
existing EDA company are available. The work is gone - I would have to
start from scratch.

Having my data, my IP locked into any format without the ability to
access this
regardless of their ability to perform sounds like a forced

And a after using their "tools" and seeing the emphasis of "whiz-bang
that seems to drive their "upgrade" mentality which usually translates
into me
debugging these new features and old, useful ones that are now broken
wizard in SolidWorks is an example) , I'm not sure I'd want them as a

More like drug dealers me thinks...


More information on my services can be found at:

"Success is going from failure to failure without a loss of
~~ Sir Winston Leonard Spencer-Churchill (1874-1965)
"I've failed at so many things so many times I make Abraham Lincoln
look like Bill Gates"
~~ Wayne Mitzen (1959-  )

"When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything
at all."
~~ God, in Futurama episode "Godfellas"

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity;
and I'm not even sure about the universe."
~~ Albert Einstein (1879-1955)

"Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is
the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there
is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block
of the universe."
~~ Frank Zappa (1940-1993)

On Nov 25, 12:44 pm, Alexander Terekhov <> wrote:
> "If you live in the 9th Circuit, you don t own your software anymore.
> Posted by Cyberbear on November 12, 2010 in Computer Software
> Posted by: David Brookshire
> We re all guilty of it. Tossing aside that thick packet that accompanied
> our new software. Clicking I Agree to 50 pages of contract that we
> scrolled past or didn t even bother clicking through to read. How could
> anyone be bound by a contract for a product they already paid for? These
> End-User License Agreements (or as the trade calls them, EULA s) have
> frequently been ruled or legislated unenforceable for being
> unconscionable, in that they force a conditional contract upon the
> consumer after they think they ve purchased a product. After all, few
> consumers read the terms and realize that the software they purchased is
> in fact being leased to them.
> But the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit took a different tack
> recently in Vernor v. Autodesk holding that a man who purchased old used
> copies of Autodesk from an office company was infringing copyright by
> selling them on eBay. The rationale was that the office company had not
> actually purchased the software from Autodesk, they had only leased it,
> and therefore could not sell the software to Vernor. Why is this an
> important (and awful) decision? Because the test the Ninth Circuit set
> out to determine if a EULA binds you and restricts your use of the
> product is:
> First, we consider whether the copyright owner specifies that a user is
> granted a license. Second, we consider whether the copyright owner
> significantly restricts the user s ability to transfer the software.
> Finally, we consider whether the copyright owner imposes notable use
> restrictions.
> ...or as I like to read it:
> 1. The company says so
> 2. The company says so
> 3. The company says so
> It doesn t matter that the EULA was 90 pages of indecipherable print
> that you clicked past without a glance. It doesn t matter that the
> contract wasn t seen until after you purchased the product. It doesn t
> matter that you might have actually never seen the contract all (how
> many times have you ignored the Click to see the Terms of Service link
> before clicking I Agree ). All that matters is what the company says.
> In fact the ruling seems to imply that companies need to err on the side
> of being overly restrictive in their licenses so they can make sure they
> meet the significantly restrictive requirements.
> Effectively this ruling allows software companies to get all the
> protections of copyright law while preventing their consumers from
> enjoying any of their rights under the statute.
> In the long run I think this is poor policy on the part of companies.
> Previously you had three main markets: those that purchased new copies
> of the software through you, those that purchased older versions through
> the secondary market, and those that pirated the software. While
> software companies often can convert users of the secondary market to
> new purchasers by including new features, there is no such effective
> enticement for software pirates who can get even the newest software for
> free. In eliminating the secondary market you are eliminating any
> customer who can t afford your products new. These customers will either
> pirate the software, making them less likely to purchase it at any point
> later, or they will find a cheaper competitor s product. Either way,
> Autodesk seems to be hurting themselves in the long run.
> So if you are lucky enough to live in the jurisdiction of Ninth Circuit,
> congratulations; you no longer own the software you are purchasing. Just
> remember that the next time you fork over $600 for a copy of Rosetta
> Stone you won t be getting any of that back by selling it used.
>  ... other posts by Cyberbear
> Leave a Reply "
> regards,
> alexander.
> --
> (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can
> be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards
> too, whereas GNU cannot.)

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]