Quote:
Originally Posted by thename
The judge's actual ruling says this:
Note also that it describes the software at issue as
Ownership wasn't the issue in this decision it's the violation of the agreement without regard to "ownership" concerns.
|
You're talking about two completely different cases. The statements from me you were quoting were talking about the ruling in the Blizzard/MDY case, not the Blizzard/BNETD case.
Quote:
The judge's actual ruling says this:
Quote:
|
the state law at issue here neither conflicts with the interoperability exception under 17 U.S.C. § 1201(f) nor restricts rights given under federal law. Appellants contractually accepted restrictions on their ability to reverse engineer by their agreement to the terms of the TOU and EULA.
|
|
As I said, that's a different case and 1201 has to do with the DMCA, not fair use vs EULA.