Quote:
Originally Posted by CyGuy
I find this very confusing, Google can't "forbid" you from selling them even if they wanted to. Something doesn't add up here.
|
Sure they can. It's called a contract. First year contracts: all contracts have an offer, acceptance of the offer, and consideration.
Offer: We'll sell you this widget for $1,500 on the condition that you don't re-sell them.
Acceptance: you buy the widget for $1,500.
Consideration: (Every party gets something, every party looses something) Widget maker gets $1,500,000 but looses the ability sell it someone else, you get the widget, but you're out $1,500.
If you then sell the widget, you're in breech of contract and the widget maker can sue for damages. Or, possibly, get a restraining order preventing you from re-selling it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sil_liS
The definition of owning something is changing.
|
Not really.
Restraints on alienation (fancy way of saying re-selling, I only use alienation incase someone wanted to google phrase for legal precedent), while depreciated, have never been per-se illegal. Or even very uncommon.
Consider tickets, many special event tickets say they are non-transferable. Maybe you've bought a large box with several individually wrapped items inside that say "not for re-sale"? Restraints on re-selling are quite common and have been for literally centuries.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndrewH
I'll wait to overreact till Google Glass is out of beta. To me, this is nothing more than people whining about NDAs.
|
An NDA or the like was clearly part of the package. These people accepted Google's offer. Avarice is mighty thing.
Lastly, a restraint on re-selling or copying something doesn't magically turn something from ownership into a license. Almost no ownership is without restraints of some kind.