Yeah boy, what you doin' takin bout dem mumbo jumbo and electric circuts... because I got myself a circute all hooked up to the tv box. Ain't said nothin on glue contracts

The Western Washington court's decision upheld the idea that customers own the software they purchase, commonly referred to as the "You bought it, you own it" principle. The Appeal Court's decision, however, undermines that idea if the software has "license only" language in its EULA.

I assume you mean the second sentence right?

oh ya!

Well, if this becomes true that I can't buy or sell used games, then I will have no problem pirating anything I can get my hands on.  I may never actually buy another video game.

In a broader sense, yeah.  I won't bore you with the details, but in essence courts tend to look to mass-produced contracts (like EULAs) and realize that the bargaining power between consumers and corporations are so uneven that letting the latter force some terms on the former isn't exactly great policy.  That doesn't mean they're always invalid, but many of the most restrictive terms in software EULAs tend to be struck down. 

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.

No sir, I'm all graduated 'n stuff now.

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?

EA could put

'By buying and playing this game, you agree to give all of your possessions to EA, and will willingly lay down your life in defence of EA if needed.'

In their EULA and people would agree to it without reading. Wouldn't mean a thing.

In this case, if it was prominently noted on the box that you were just licensing it, then it would be legal. If it is in small print on the box, or in an EULA that you need to buy the game to see, then it would not hold up in court

Edit - Australian law, I have no idea about the USA

The courts are frequently wrong.  This is why we have level after level of courts.  The 9th circuit (which only has jusridiction over 9 states to begin with) is an appeals court where people go when they think the previous level made a mistake.  Also, the 9th circuit seems to get overturned by the Supreme Court more often than any of the other circuits, so the chance of them being wrong is quite likely considering the Supreme Court has overturned basically every attempt to kill the resale market.

Hmm, that was educational enough...

I must agree, it is bizarre how they think it's fair that you can be bound to a restricting EULA like that, when you can't even access it without opening the thing. The way Timothy Vernor's situation played out seems especially ridiculous. Just imagining it in my head when he bought / sold it, I can't help but think, "It's a trap!"

This just in. You cannot sell your house or your car since there are software applications in there.

It's nice that you BELIEVE. I don't.

Well that would be nice. Really. Right now it seems like they could put anything like "by accepting the EULA you give your soul to..." and it would be completely valid.