🚀 go-pugleaf

rat@ruth.UUCP (David Douthitt) writes:

>charlie@umnstat.stat.umn.edu (Charles Geyer) writes:

>Thank goodness someone else noticed those warrantees.  What a load of
>MALARKEY ...  Thank goodness for the part that says "SOME OF THESE
>LIMITATIONS MAY NOT BE VALID IN SOME STATES" -- ie, some states have
>passed laws that actually (GASP!) force a company to be (OH MY!) RESPONSIBLE
>for its products... in Wisconsin, Ibetcha it's the "Lemon Law" that I've
>heard about...

>Now if it was only possible to get rid of the part that says,
>YOU DON'T OWN THIS PRODUCT, WE DO.  YOU ONLY PURCHASED THE RIGHT TO USE IT.
>ANYTHING WE SAY GOES...

Not to give legal advice, but shrink-wrap licenses were recently discussed
either here or on another forum. My feeling is that they are not enforceable
as a license. There is no consideration to support the imposition of
a license. (under the theory that old consideration is bad consideration).

This is not to say that you can duplicate the software. That is still
(and will continue to be) copyright infringement, possibly actionable
today as a felony (see the recent S893 discussion in this forum).
What does change is the waiver of warranties. Under Article II of the
UCC, many waivers of warranties must be priminent, etc. This is hardly
the case when they are embedded in a sealed box. 

For a very good discussion of shrink wrap licenses see _Step-Saver
Data Sys., Inc. v. Wyse Technology_, 939 F.2d 91 (3rd Cir., 1991).

Bruce E. Hayden
(303) 758-8400
bhayden@csn.org