License transfer thoughts. secondhand addons?!".

[WarpD 824]

There is no safe method to allow 'ownership' of either the software or the license. Both must remain with the developer for legal reasons.

[Mike... 7]

There is no safe method to allow 'ownership' of either the software or the license. Both must remain with the developer for legal reasons.

We've been over that before, see this post. Or to put it in preferred terminology, the granted license of the "seller" would be revoked. The "buyer" would be granted a different/new license. That should work fine within the confines of the current system. I'll throw in another concession. You could limit support for "secondhand licenses" to installation issues only. Wait, that's probably too much work, right, keeping track of all that? Or does it conflict with your ownership? Or would it endanger your profits?:(

[N400QW 205]

....You know, ever since piracy came into play, the rights and freedoms of the legitimate consumers have been on the decline. There are already those who say no to elaborate protection schemes. I have recently said no myself to Rise of Flight and its continuous internet connection requirement. It will only get worse with this bright idea of cloud computing. I wonder if devs are worried about a loss of profit in that context.

Since theft is a crime against legitimate owners of real property, automobiles, big box stores, and hardware and software, it does indeed effect an individuals rights and freedoms.That is reason the law and law enforcement, small and large businesses, the music industry, and yes the software industry take great pains to prevent or mitigate the effects of theft on their business and on a society.The first line of defense for software makers began with legal means of protecting their own monetary interest while protecting the rights and freedoms of consumers.It is a balancing act which grows more difficult to maintain when both casual users and dedicated thieves avail themselves of some product.A counter move against theft is often seen as an attack on consumer rights. That is simply an inaccurate assumption.This is a poor example but please bear with me...Imagine leasing a home where the lease amount is paid and in exchange all the rights of the lease are yours...but the lease contains legal restrictions on what rights you have regarding the leased property.Now imagine that you wished to sell the leased property on the secondary housing market and found that the terms of the lease prohibited your selling leased property.Lobbying the real estate industry to allow you and others to sell leased property in a "used housing market" would surely fail.I know, poor example but perhaps it may shed some light on the subject. :(

[WarpD 824]

We've been over that before, see this post. Or to put it in preferred terminology, the granted license of the "seller" would be revoked. The "buyer" would be granted a different/new license. That should work fine within the confines of the current system. I'll throw in another concession. You could limit support for "secondhand licenses" to installation issues only. Wait, that's probably too much work, right, keeping track of all that? Or does it conflict with your ownership? Or would it endanger your profits?:(

The minute you, the consumer, are allowed to make profit off of a developer's product... and the developer gets nothing in return... legal 'ownership' becomes cloudy. Thus the reason that there is no legal allowance for such tasks.Also... when was the last time you worked for free? Do you donate your time to your employer?

[january 19]

It's my understanding that a contract without a term (read Expiry Date) is NOT a contract and the courts will set it aside.(at least in Canada). I believe also, that a contract term specified as "indefinite" is similarly illegal. I'm not aware of the typical EULA having a "term definite".Perhaps we all should read our EULAs to see if & when they expire?Alex Reid

[bob.bernstein 0]

it's essentially about individuals selling software they don't use anymore, not sure how altruistic that is...

Here's the disconnect between our thinking. Your idea doesn't need any discussion if you would be willing to behave illegally, and take your chances running afoul of the justice system. But you want your secondary marketplace idea to be LEGAL and so you have written your forum posts. Therefore....the big task you are facing is to get the companies to become complicit, that the companies make changes to suit your idea.Therefore, everything I'm telling you is from the company's point of view. When I discuss altruism, its the Company's altruism of which I speak. You seem to be quick to apply my words to this imaginary secondary marketplace. Don't do that. This marketplace doesn't and won't legally exist until the Company's permit it.If you wish your idea to be legal, you must look at it from the viewpoint of the Companies and give them a good reason to participate. If you hope they participate because it would be "nice" for you...you are asking for altruism. You begin to have a chance when you demonstrate that the profits they would enjoy with your idea would be greater than the profits they currently enjoy.Bob

[bob.bernstein 0]

Hello,This procedure must be urgently changed.It's not a standard to sign a contract and read it after .. it's inaxeptable.It is a exeption ... the software market.Consummer must be able to read the EULA before buy or beginning the install of a software product.Regards.Gus.

Gus, there are two basic notions being discussed in this thread. They are both interesting, but don't logically connect all that well. On one hand, I've read that some posters wish the software companies would make changes to honor the wishes of the customer to permit a secondary marketplace. The second concept is challenging the legality of the present SOP that Software companies use, primarily focused on the EULA. My posts, so far, have focused on how companies make decisions....very different focus than exploring the legal rights companies have to do what they are doing. There have already been some challenges to the EULA concept, I know some lawyers frequent this forum...they could cite real cases. I don't know exactly what has happened in those cases, but they should be reviewed prior to calling for "urgent change". One case I heard about did center on exactly what you raised as a concern, Gus....and that argument claimed that the contract was established at the point in which considerations (money for product in this case) were exchanged. Following that logic, any new stipulations that impact the exchange cannot be levied after the contract is established. This clearly would challenge the "hidden" eula notion, regardless of return policies. I believe the concern in that case was a practice of companies not printing minimum hardware requirements clearly on the outside of the packaging, but the notion does appear to be effective precedent to challenge the eula. It would be interesting for someone who is facile with the legal databases to provide more insight.Bob

[WarpD 824]

For those assuming the EULA is not upholdable in court... keep in mind not one court, on the entire planet has ever ruled a EULA invalid or illegal. Zip, zilch, nada.EDIT: At least I know of no court... and I've been working in software/EULA-land for 25+yrs.

[january 19]

For those assuming the EULA is not upholdable in court... keep in mind not one court, on the entire planet has ever ruled a EULA invalid or illegal. Zip, zilch, nada.EDIT: At least I know of no court... and I've been working in software/EULA-land for 25+yrs.

Ed- do you know if a EULA has ever been challenged on the basis of lacking a "term definite"? I know in Canada, that a real estate "Agreement to Purchase"- ie a contract promising to do (or not do) certain things isn't worth diddly if it doesn't have an expiry date. I'm not a lawyer but it is my understanding that that principle is common to all contracts.Alex Reid

[N400QW 205]

I'm also unaware of any legal challenge or ruling against EULA use. There may be one or two but suspect it would take several paralegals a long time to scrounge up one that would be regarded as a legal precedent against EULA use.As already mentioned, "wishful thinking and/or thinking aloud" do not a legal argument or a market make.FS forums are hardly the place to find legal "loopholes" as to the question of Expiry.As a former Real Estate License holder I can say that an "Agreement to Purchase" Real Property differs substantially from a software "End UserLicense Agreement" (EULA)Sorry, but this discusssion seems to be drifting towards a debate over the intracacies of International Contract Law. At the end of the day the notion of a secondary "used software market" has already failed a "sniff test" :(

[WarpD 824]

Ed- do you know if a EULA has ever been challenged on the basis of lacking a "term definite"? I know in Canada, that a real estate "Agreement to Purchase"- ie a contract promising to do (or not do) certain things isn't worth diddly if it doesn't have an expiry date. I'm not a lawyer but it is my understanding that that principle is common to all contracts.Alex Reid

Since the EULA doesn't promise to do anything whatsoever... nor does it promise to not do anything... I'm pretty certain it doesn't apply. Not all contracts/agreements can be held to a "term definite". When you sign a repair order to get your auto repaired... there is no 'term definite' on how long the repairs are good for, yet it is indeed a contract. :(I will also point out that all contracts, and especially a EULA have a statement regarding by what locale their legal basis is executed under, which is something you agreed to abide by upon accepting the EULA. Since location of legal jurisdiction is not something you can change on a whim (it's always written in a contract)... when you accepted the EULA's terms...you set the legal jurisdiction.

[january 19]

Since the EULA doesn't promise to do anything whatsoever... nor does it promise to not do anything........

If the EULA doesn't promise to do anything- nor do nothing---- I'm puzzled as to how the user can be required to abide by it.I thought a contract implied a duty to perform on both parties.Wonder if I could find a paying job where I don't have to promise to do any work?Anyway- enough legal nitpicking! Done.Alex Reid

[dragon09 2]

Hi guys,I hate to rain on your parade but different countries have different laws.Here in Germany, where I currently reside all parts of the EULA which contradict local laws are automatically void.Therefore I gain possession of any software I buy.This software can be sold or given away as a gift.The only other way would be a rent or lease contract.That of course means thatthe seller or vendor has to guarantee that the software will work as claimed.Otherwise I am allowed to return the software at anytime.Any part of the EULA not in agreement with these laws are void(illegal).So yes, I can sell any software I wish on ebay with all activation codes.Things are different here. James

[JSkorna 137]

Hi,Can you post a link to show where your local laws may supersede in this manner?

[N400QW 205]

Hi guys,I hate to rain on your parade but different countries have different laws.Here in Germany, where I currently reside all parts of the EULA which contradict local laws are automatically void.Therefore I gain possession of any software I buy.This software can be sold or given away as a gift.The only other way would be a rent or lease contract.That of course means thatthe seller or vendor has to guarantee that the software will work as claimed.Otherwise I am allowed to return the software at anytime.Any part of the EULA not in agreement with these laws are void(illegal).So yes, I can sell any software I wish on ebay with all activation codes.Things are different here.James

Sorry James but your suppositions are in error. I would like to see you post your legal bonefides as well as your extensive background in International Contract Law.I'm positive that the Legal Team at Microsoft or other large International Software Maker would love to discuss this view with you. :(