A lawsuit has been ongoing since August of 2007, regarding Mr. Vernor’s alleged sale of R14 on ebay. Some aspects of the case have been settled but the ongoing current issue appears to be Copyright law and the EULA.
It’s touted as the Big Bad Wolf is squeezing Little Red Riding hood. It would appear that way, perhaps if I just looked at the headlines, and the face value information.
There has been considerable discussion about the possibility that the software was already upgraded, at a reduced upgrade fee (there was also a statement that this was not in the case documentation). If it is true, then the individual accepted an agreement to upgrade or move up to a new product at a reduced cost, and subsequently stop using the old version.
I view a normal upgrade in the following mechanical fashion:
If the product was upgraded, the original is now UPGRADED, and no longer exists. You can’t sell something that doesn’t exist.
But of course the tiny detail that Autodesk says in order to purchase the license, you agree not to release any portion of the software to any third parties. Right or wrong, the statement is in there. Read the EULA.
I read all of the agreements and summaries that go along with the products, including trademark uses, etc. I don’t agree with every detail in there, but I do know before I purchase, that the general idea that I can’t sell it again without written approval for Autodesk.
If the guy upgraded at a reduced cost, the sale is unacceptable.
If the guy paid full price at each iteration, box and all, then I am caught between, “I understood Autodesk would not have sold the product to me If I disclosed that I would resell it”, and “I paid $8000 for a CD, and now I’m done using it, and want to give it to the next guy. Why not?”
Here’s the thing. I have a “No Whiny Bastards” rule here. If you accept the paycheck, do the work requested. When you can no longer deal with what is being asked of you, don’t take the paycheck. It’s called honor.
If you purchase software knowing you can’t resell it, but then say “that’s just not fair, I should be able to sell something I purchased”, then it’s dishonorable. Period. Would I like to resell some older software, HELL YES!! But the agreement was understood, and saying “yeah, I know about the EULA, and I purchased, but it’s not fair” doesn’t hold water. If you don’t like the deal, don’t take the deal. Anything else is just backhanded and dishonorable.
I did not read every detail of the case. I don’t know if there was an upgrade purchased. I was commenting on the discussion that was published. I have posted the information I did read, so that the facts could be seen as they are.
The Docket Info
Case Number 2:07-cv-01189
Case Name Vernor v. Autodesk Inc et al
Court United States District Court, Western District of Washington (Seattle)
Presiding Judge Richard A. Jones
Initiated On 8/1/2007
eBay seller Timothy Vernor decided to strike back at Autodesk after they issued multiple DMCA takedown notices claiming that his sales of AutoCAD software on eBay violated Autodesk’s copyright. This lawsuit caught the attention of consumer activist group Public Citizen, which is now representing Vernor in the case.
Autodesk uses provisions of the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) to send takedown notices when someone lists legitimately purchased AutoCAD software for sale on an auction site like eBay. Autodesk’s license agreement prohibits resale, however Mr. Vernor notes that Autodesk’s takedown notices are sent under the auspices of copyright law, not contract law. He further contends that the license agreement is not enforceable in any case.
The main point of the argument here is the notion that the DMCA does not apply because no copyrights are being violated, and therefore Autodesk cannot force auction sites to remove listings of AutoCAD for sale. On its face, this argument has merit because it is not copyright law that prohibits the resale of AutoCAD — it is the shrink wrap license agreement, which falls under contract law.
Information herein was taken from web sources as follows:
Cad Court outline of events and summary
Owen’s statement about initial settlement and remaining issues