View Single Post
Old 09-21-2010, 01:23 PM   #29
Shaggy
Wizard
Shaggy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Shaggy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Shaggy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Shaggy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Shaggy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Shaggy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Shaggy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Shaggy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Shaggy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Shaggy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Shaggy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Shaggy's Avatar
 
Posts: 4,293
Karma: 529619
Join Date: May 2007
Device: iRex iLiad, DR800SG
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kali Yuga View Post
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.
I don't think Autodesk can claim victory yet. This was a setback for Vernor, certainly, but this court didn't make a ruling. All they did was basically send it back for trial, instead of letting the lower court make a declaratory judgment.

Also keep in mind that one of the main reasons the court found that CTA was a licensee is that previously Autodesk had sued CTA for "unauthorized" use of their software (separate from the current case), and as part of the settlement to that previous case Autodesk agreed to redistributed copies to CTA, and CTA specifically agreed as part of the settlement that they were a licensee, not an owner.

One of the main tests that is used for determining license vs sale is that the customer is made aware up front that it is only a licensee. Because of the terms of that previous settlement, CTA clearly knew that they fell under licensing terms. That is possibly a significant part of the reason that this court found that CTA was a licensee, not an owner.

As someone else pointed out, those special circumstances may mean that this case doesn't really apply as a more general precedent for consumers/retailers.
Shaggy is offline   Reply With Quote