Court Rules For Software Ownership Over Licensing 177
valderost writes "Out-law.com reports on a finding of the US District Court for the Western District of Washington, in favor of an individual reselling Autodesk's AutoCAD software in 'his claim that he owned the software and had the right to sell it on.' The decision hinges on some technicalities in the Autodesk license and conflicting precedents involving a Vanessa Redgrave film, but it's good news for the idea that a software purchase is just that. 'The Court said that it had to follow [the film] case's precedent because it was older than another conflicting ruling, and that it could not choose a precedent based on the most desirable policy. "The court's decision today is not based on any policy judgment. Congress is both constitutionally and institutionally suited to render judgments on policy; courts generally are not," the Court ruled. "Precedent binds the court regardless of whether it would be good policy to ignore it."'"
Re:Information wants to be free (Score:2, Funny)
Unless its Leenux - then you better follow that gnu/license you software pirate!
Re:Can o' worms (Score:5, Funny)
Mostly because opening the can is a violation of the EULA, voids your warranty and forces you to rely on downloading 3rd party patches for your can as you can no longer connect to WormNet, the premiere Can o' Worms networking solution software that is required to run alongside your Can o' Worms at all times.
Re:Can o' worms (Score:3, Funny)
Cans of Worms have lids for a reason. Mostly because opening the can is a violation of the EULA, voids your warranty and forces you to rely on downloading 3rd party patches
You probably broke the can of worms while trying to install unauthorized worms.