Unfair/Illeagal ban of used software sales

Equaliser123

Flyboy152 wrote: »

Can none of you read?

I am not making any comment on the OP's case. I am merely making a general point that because something is included in a set of terms and conditions, does not automatically make it enforceable. How many different ways do you want me to write it?

Equaliser, I am not sure whether you quite understand what I am writing, or you are just trying wriggle out of an earlier misunderstanding whilst retaining some face.

If the latter is true, I suggest you stop digging.

Hi.

First of all - calm down a bit and try and retain some politeness. It's just an internet forum and you are being a little highly strung.

I fully understand what you said. I am not sure I agree. Typically the statute and Regulation I quoted have dealt with exclusions and restrictions upon the performance obligations of the seller. If you think you can point to a general "fairness" obligation in IP licensing arrangements, please do let me know.

Flyboy152

Equaliser123 wrote: »

Hi.

First of all - calm down a bit and try and retain some politeness. It's just an internet forum and you are being a little highly strung.

I fully understand what you said. I am not sure I agree. Typically the statute and Regulation I quoted have dealt with exclusions and restrictions upon the performance obligations of the seller. If you think you can point to a general "fairness" obligation in IP licensing arrangements, please do let me know.

I really don't think you do, otherwise you might have read the bit where I wrote:

I am not making any comment on the OP's case.

fthl

If you think you can point to a general "fairness" obligation in IP licensing arrangements, please do let me know.

He's not talking about IP - but contract. And the point made is a good one - just because a term is in a contract does not mean that it is enforceable or valid or that there are consequences for breaching it even if it is enforceable and/or valid.

Equaliser123

Flyboy152 wrote: »

I really don't think you do, otherwise you might have read the bit where I wrote:

No I do. Honestly. But I think you are getting a bit g'eed up about this for some reason.

You've had nothing but reasoned polite opinion from me and yet you are getting all excited. I'm not sure why.

Equaliser123

fthl wrote: »

He's not talking about IP - but contract. And the point made is a good one - just because a term is in a contract does not mean that it is enforceable or valid or that there are consequences for breaching it even if it is enforceable and/or valid.

Point remains - this is a licence of intellectual property. The owner doesn't need to licence it. Show me where IP terms are subject to any 'fairness'?

If the licence terms are not acceptable to the end-user, you don't subscribe. Simple.

funkymonkey1

This is a pure contract issue - if you don't like the terms of the contract, don't buy the product. There is nothing illegal about selling you a licence to use a product that cannot be passed on to another person.

The person who sold to the OP should not have done so, and the OP should try and get their money back but there is no come back against the software company.

Flyboy152

funkymonkey1 wrote: »

This is a pure contract issue - if you don't like the terms of the contract, don't buy the product. There is nothing illegal about selling you a licence to use a product that cannot be passed on to another person.

The person who sold to the OP should not have done so, and the OP should try and get their money back but there is no come back against the software company.

Blimey, another one. :wall:

fthl

Point remains - this is a licence of intellectual property. The owner doesn't need to licence it.

That is the odd bit - you are making valid points about this particular issue, and Flyboy is making valid points about contract law in general. Both are correct, but you are arguing different things. It is almost like you stating that Blackpool is the best place to go on holiday if you like towers and Fly is saying that the fireworks at Disney are good.

As for fairness in IP? Rights of reversion? Fair Dealing? UCTA (if you take the same line as The Salvage Association v CAP Financial Services Ltd, as opposed to Chitty)

And it isn't a pure contract issue - that is the problem. It is a complex issue surrounding rights of ownership, licensing and stuff. You can't sell what you don't own... you might not even be able to assign it, depending on the terms of the licence as opposed to the a contractual term.

Equaliser123

fthl wrote: »

That is the odd bit - you are making valid points about this particular issue, and Flyboy is making valid points about contract law in general. Both are correct, but you are arguing different things. It is almost like you stating that Blackpool is the best place to go on holiday if you like towers and Fly is saying that the fireworks at Disney are good.

As for fairness in IP? Rights of reversion? Fair Dealing? UCTA (if you take the same line as The Salvage Association v CAP Financial Services Ltd, as opposed to Chitty)

And it isn't a pure contract issue - that is the problem. It is a complex issue surrounding rights of ownership, licensing and stuff. You can't sell what you don't own... you might not even be able to assign it, depending on the terms of the licence as opposed to the a contractual term.

Not sure I follow. Licence terms are contractual.

Arg

It's absoultely shocking that not only is there a fair amount of people saying it's ok but they are actively defending companies trying to siphon off more of your consumer rights using this license business as an excuse.