[LINK] Adobe vs Softman injunction vacated

[Chirgwin, Richard]

Indeed an interesting read. It also criticises the shrinkwrap license
agreement. Specifically:
>Adobe argues that the EULA requires construction of the transaction as a
license
>rather than a sale. The Court finds that SoftMan is not bound by the EULA
because 
>there was no assent to its terms. 

In more detail: Adobe had put the license terms only in the installation,
not in a hardcopy - the "Yes I agree" button. Because SoftMan never
installed the software, it was never asked to agree to the license; and
therefore Adobe could not complain of a violation.

Another gem:
>In this case, through the use of licensing, Adobe seeks a vast and
seemingly
>unlimited power to control prices and all channels of distribution. 

Nice of the court to notice that one. At last, a small measure of returning
liberty in the face of license shenanegans!

Richard Chirgwin


-----Original Message-----
From: Grant Bayley [mailto:gbayley@ausmac.net]
Sent: Friday, 2 November 2001 10:49
To: 2600-list@wiretapped.net; 2600-law@wiretapped.net;
link@www.anu.edu.au
Subject: [LINK] Adobe vs Softman injunction vacated


Hi all,

There's an interesting link here to a document from a United States
District Judge vacating a preliminary injunction on a company called
Softman for reselling Adobe products (legit ones, not copies).

If my reading of this document is correct, it contains a number of
specific criticisms and findings against the notion that software is
licensed as opposed to software is sold.

If you're interested in such things, it's well worth a read.

	http://cryptome.org/softman-v-adobe.htm

Grant

-------------------------------------------------------
Grant Bayley                         gbayley@ausmac.net
-Admin @ AusMac Archive, Wiretapped.net, 2600 Australia
 www.ausmac.net   www.wiretapped.net   www.2600.org.au
-------------------------------------------------------