[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss] Adobe vs. softMan
- To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Adobe vs. softMan
- From: Bryan Taylor <bryan_w_taylor(at)yahoo.com>
- Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 14:02:44 -0800 (PST)
- In-Reply-To: <200111022014.fA2KEuK12209@samsara.law.cwru.edu>
- Reply-To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
--- "Peter D. Junger" <junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu> wrote:
> I am afraid that it does not say that. It says that Softman never entered
> into a contract with Adobe. They do not pass on the effect of shrink-wrap
> licenses.
They explicitly say that they don't rule on shrink-wraps. However, once you say
that the original transaction is a contract of sale and that the user is the
"owner", most clickwrap style contracts should fall apart for lack of
consideration since, as you pointed out, they don't give you anything at all
that you don't have by virtue of being the owner.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Find a job, post your resume.
http://careers.yahoo.com