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]