[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss] Interesting 1st sale-shrinkwrap-EULA-(c) infringementcase
- To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Interesting 1st sale-shrinkwrap-EULA-(c) infringementcase
- From: "Michael A Rolenz" <Michael.A.Rolenz(at)aero.org>
- Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 09:08:59 -0800
- Reply-To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
WRT to warrenties...remember that there is also a clause on the paper that
says that you may have additional rights in certain states.
Bryan Taylor <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent by: email@example.com
11/02/01 08:34 AM
Please respond to dvd-discuss
Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Interesting 1st sale-shrinkwrap-EULA-(c)
--- Noah silva <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> that's laughable. How about I "sell" you my house.. money now, terms
> later. How can you assent if you don't know the terms. Also, at the
> _least_ EULAs are contracts of adhesion, which don't carry much weight.
Well, I obviously don't agree with the analysis (which comes from the
case), but it's important to understand it.
The idea is that the terms are fixed and they are in the box. Upon opening
box, if the customer doesn't like the terms, they have the opportunity to
return the product. The case says that warantees are often done this way,
says that software licence terms are really no different. It's a sort of
planned addition of detail, so it isn't a "modification" to the contract
it is expected.
The rival view is the Step-Saver decision, which seems to be widely cited
Do You Yahoo!?
Find a job, post your resume.