Klein, Michael wrote:
> 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.
>   

This is a very good point.

> 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.
>
>   
Same here. If it wasn't for the EULA I'd probably think differently.

Edward