Re: [dvd-discuss] Sun vs first sale

["Michael A Rolenz" <Michael.A.Rolenz(at)aero.org>]

And, if a shrinkwrap license is no license but a sale, then Microsoft is 
committing a fraud since they are demanind a fee for somethign that they 
have no right to and actually are providing no service for anywise. 




"D. C. Sessions" <dcs@lumbercartel.com>
Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
05/30/2002 09:10 PM
Please respond to dvd-discuss

 
        To:     dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
        cc: 
        Subject:        Re: [dvd-discuss] Sun vs first sale


On Thu, 2002-05-30 at 12:37, Eric Seppanen wrote:
> On Thu, May 30, 2002 at 02:08:05PM -0400, Robert S. Thau wrote:
> > Eric Seppanen writes:
> >  > Interesting, but offtopic:
> >  > 
> >  > http://store.sun.com/catalog/doc/BrowsePage.jhtml;?cid=82431
> >  > 
> >  > Sun seems to think that they can shrinkwrap-license away first 
sale.
> > 
> > More precisely, their legal theory is that no sale has taken place, so
> > the first sale doctrine doesn't apply.  As the actual license
> > agreement, at
> <snip>
> 
> > This theory is common to a *lot* of software licenses, BTW.
> 
> Sure, I'm aware of that.  But few companies are so bold as to say "no 
> transfers", and this is the first time I've heard of "no transfers even 
if 
> you sell the machine it's installed on".

Microsoft requires you to pay them a license transfer fee
if you sell a computer preloaded with Windows.  I wouldn't
be surprised to see them stop "supporting" transfer of old
versions.

-- 
| May I have the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, |
|  the strength to change the things I cannot accept, and the   |
|    cunning to hide the bodies of those who got in my way.     |
+------------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> -----------+