noname2200 said:
I've browsed through the opinion, and while I concede that it meets a very narrow reading of the letter of the law, the panel has had to do some major dancing to fit their opinion into precedent. It also assumes Congress employed a level of attention to detail that any American over the age of six knows to be laughable. Moreover, there's something else that's utterly bizzare in the 9th's current decision: no one reads a EULA until after they've purchased the product. In fact, I don't think you can access the EULA until then (the defendant here certainly could not). How, then, the Ninth believes that a contract term which one of the parties could not have been aware of at the time the contract was formed might be binding upon that party is, simply, mind-boggling. That point wasn't even addressed in the opinion. I'm thinking that the case just drew a poor panel, and that it'll be reversed when it's reviewed en banc or, failing that, at the Supreme Court. It's already created a circuit split, and it's a big economic issue, so if it's appealled I'm pretty sure it'll be heard.
Neither of these apply here, actually: the EULA actually had a "license" clause (the opposite of a sale clause) and the defendant bought the software at a garage sale and sold it on eBay: no retailers were ever involved. Even scarier, huh? |
Well, now that's all cleared up. You deserve a highfive my good man. *highfive*