 |
 |
Edward M. Corrado wrote: > This will be interesting to see how it works out. From what I read, it > looks like the case that Thomson has is based on, or at least strongly > enhanced by, the EULA. Thus, the legal questions may end up being 1) is > "freeing" data from a proprietary file format aviolation of > copyright/patent/ etc.? and if not, 2) can you sign that away by > agreeing to an EULA? Two points: First, it's my understanding that contract law trumps basic civil law in almost all cases. Unless you can convince a court that you entered into the contract under duress, or that the part of the contract in question is a violation of a basic unabridgeable right (this last being the reason a lot of employment contract non-compete clauses are unenforceable in several right-to-work states), you're bound by it. I think you'd be hard pressed to argue that reverse engineering is a Basic Right Of Humankind. Unless...The First Amendment guarantees the Right of Assembly. Can we extrapolate that and argue for a Right of Disassembly? ;-) Second, this isn't a EULA in the sense of "By opening this package, you agree..." or "By clicking this, you agree..." Those kinds of contracts are questionable. It's an actual contract granting GMU a site license for the Endnote software, negotiated by Thomson and GMU and agreed to in writing on both sides. I'll be disappointed if Thomson Reuters prevails on this one, but I won't be surprised, either, based on my own (admittedly limited) understanding. -- Michael B. Klein Digital Initiatives Technology Librarian Boston Public Library (617) 859-2391 [log in to unmask]