 |
 |
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