Wikipedia mentions some key legal cases, and which Federal court districts have ruled in which ways:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EULA "Enforceability The enforceability of an EULA depends on several factors, one of them being the court in which the case is heard. Most courts that have addressed the validity of the shrinkwrap license agreements have found them to be invalid, characterizing them as contracts of adhesion<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adhesion_contract>, unconscionable <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconscionable>, and/or unacceptable pursuant to the U.C.C.<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Commercial_Code>—see, for instance, *Step-Saver Data Systems, Inc. v. Wyse Technology<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Step-Saver_Data_Systems%2C_Inc._v._Wyse_Technology>(939 F.2d 91)*, *Vault Corp. v. Quaid Software Ltd.<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vault_Corp._v._Quaid_Software_Ltd.&action=edit> * (at harvard.edu <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/ilaw/Contract/vault.htm>) and Rich, Mass Market Software and the Shrinkwrap License<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rich%2C_Mass_Market_Software_and_the_Shrinkwrap_License&action=edit>(23 Colo. Law 1321.17). A minority of courts have determined that the shrinkwrap license agreement is valid and enforceable: see *ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ProCD%2C_Inc._v._Zeidenberg> * (at findlaw.com<http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=7th&navby=case&no=961139>), *Microsoft v. Harmony Computers<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Microsoft_v._Harmony_Computers&action=edit> * (846 F. Supp. 208, 212, E.D.N.Y.<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._District_Court_for_the_Eastern_District_of_New_York>1994), *Novell v. Network Trade Center<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Novell_v._Network_Trade_Center&action=edit> * (at harvard.edu<http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/DVD/cases/Novell_v_NTC.html>), and Arizona Cartridge Remanufacturers Association Inc. v. Lexmark International Inc.<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_Cartridge_Remanufacturers_Association_Inc._v._Lexmark_International_Inc.>may have some bearing as well. The 7th Circuit<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Seventh_Circuit>and 8th Circuit<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Eighth_Circuit>subscribe to the "license" and "not sold" arguments, while most other circuits do not. In addition, the contracts' enforceability depends on whether the state has passed Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Computer_Information_Transactions_Act>(UCITA) or Anti-UCITA<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anti-UCITA&action=edit>(UCITA Bomb Shelter<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=UCITA_Bomb_Shelter&action=edit>) laws. In Anti-UCITA states, the Uniform Commercial Code<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Commercial_Code>(UCC) has been amended to either specifically define software as a good (thus making it fall under the UCC), or to disallow contracts which specify that the terms of contract are subject to the laws of a state that's passed UCITA. Recently, publishers have begun to encrypt<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encryption>their software packages [*citation needed*] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources>to make it impossible for a user to install the software without either agreeing to the license agreement or violating the Digital Millennium Copyright Act<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act>(DMCA) and foreign counterparts <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WIPO_Copyright_Treaty>. The DMCA specifically provides for reverse engineering of software for interoperability purposes, so there was some controversy as to whether software license agreement clauses which restrict this are enforceable. The Eighth Circuit <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighth_Circuit> case of *Blizzard v. BnetD <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blizzard_v._BnetD>* (at eff.org<http://www.eff.org/IP/Emulation/Blizzard_v_bnetd/>) determined that such clauses are enforceable, following the Federal Circuit<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Circuit>decision of *Baystate v. Bowers*. [1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EULA#_note-0> " On 5/28/07, b_s-wilk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Have there been cases where the software developer succeeded in suing for EULA violations? State? Federal? Foreign?
-- John DeCarlo, My Views Are My Own ************************************************************************ * ==> QUICK LIST-COMMAND REFERENCE - Put the following commands in <== * ==> the body of an email & send 'em to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <== * Join the list: SUBSCRIBE COMPUTERGUYS-L Your Name * Too much mail? Try Daily Digests command: SET COMPUTERGUYS-L DIGEST * Tired of the List? Unsubscribe command: SIGNOFF COMPUTERGUYS-L * New address? From OLD address send: CHANGE COMPUTERGUYS-L YourNewAddress * Need more help? Send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ************************************************************************ * List archive at www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ * RSS at www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/maillist.xml * Messages bearing the header "X-No-Archive: yes" will not be archived ************************************************************************
