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?

Rreminds me of this

Anybody remember that one? lol

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.

They need to SHARE. Either party being greedy will be no good for the other, developers are suffering, game stores are reaping the rewards. If used sales went out the window, I don't think many game stores would survive. Maybe a 40/60% profit to Dev/Store would help ...

Rreminds me of this

Anybody remember that one? lol

Ok, so the "you bought it, you own it" principle they got right.  But the way they gave EULA contracts power to undermine that would possibly get turned over.  Yes?