* Posts by Arly

3 posts • joined 18 Apr 2013

Google Glass will SELF-DESTRUCT if flogged on eBay

Arly

Re: Why "sell" in the first place

FYI, in the mid-1990's many of the fledgling software companies tried to circumvent U.S. law and the "First Sale Doctrine" by characterizing a consumer software product sale as a lease,a restricted license, or a restricted "rental". This attempt failed since these transactions had all the characteristics of an actual sale. These so-called "licenses" were called "shrink-wrap licenses" which referred to software licenses where the terms of the license were concealed from the purchaser until the the shrink-wrap packaging was removed and the box was opened. The majority of U.S. state laws found these types of licenses to be invalid and unenforceable. The software companies tried to circumvent state law by lobbying for federal legislation to permit such licenses but this effort failed due consumer opposition and U.S. legal precedent of the Uniform Commercial Code and the "First Sale Doctrine" which forbids restrictions on post-sale product transfers whether software or hardware

Arly

Re: Sale of Goods Act trumps Google bs

This poster obviously has no understanding of U.S. intellectual property law and the "First Sale Doctrine" which bars post sale restrictions on the sale or transfer of the goods to another party.

Arly

Good luck to Google

For those of you who have purchased a Google Glass don't fret. The product transfer restrictions that Google is attempting to enforce violates the well-established "First Sale Doctrine" and are uninforceable under established U.S. patent, trademark and copyright law. Google has just invited a class suit which will likely cost them more damages than any profits they might make selling the product. My recommendation to Google is to fire your corporate ambulance chasers and hire some real attorneys who are familiar with U.S. intellectual property laws.

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR WEEKLY TECH NEWSLETTER

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019