Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy
To me, the crux of this case seems to be that CTA could not resell the original software while still using the upgrade....
|
On one hand I concur, in that CTA is in many ways still "using" the original software.
Again, though, it looks like the court isn't concerned with that. To them, the question is whether this is a license or a sale. If it's a sale, CTA had the right to do whatever they wanted with the software, and if Autodesk didn't want them to resell it, they'd have to return the installation media (i.e. the "purchased objects") to Autodesk -- a process that, apparently, Autodesk used prior to R14 but abandoned.
I.e. the conditions of the upgrade are part of the SLA, which is only binding on the end-user if the software is actually a license rather than a purchase.
Yes, the court did vacate the earlier ruling. But that's basically a victory for Autodesk, since this case was an attempt by Vernor for the court to pre-emptively declare that Autodesk can't sue him. The precise wording of the conclusion:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
We hold that because CTA is a licensee, not an owner, the “sale” of its Release 14 copies to Vernor did not convey ownership. Vernor is accordingly not entitled to invoke the first sale doctrine or the essential step defense, on behalf of his customers.
|
So this doesn't affect first-sale for physical goods, but if upheld it finds that a software vendor has the rights to control the use of the product after the purchase. Or, similar to how the EFF puts it, first-sale rights are less important than a license agreement, which can contain whatever terms are set by the vendor and agreed to by the end-user.