OSNews

This is getting really tiring, now I post links to relevant case law and analysis and still.. Here's a snippet from the decision in MDY v Blizzard:

"During oral argument, counsel for MDY asserted that a person who purchases a copy of the WoW game client software from a commercial retailer and walks out of the store with the copy in hand certainly would not view himself as a mere licensee of what he just purchased. The person could dispose of the software copy as he chose, throwing it in the trash, giving it to a friend, or installing it on his computer all consistent with ownership.

Counsel for Blizzard responded by noting that the license is clear from notices on the box purchased at the retailer and from a paper copy of the EULA contained in the box, as well as from the online notices that appear when the game client software is installed on a personal computer. One wonders what more could be done to make clear that the purchaser is a licensee, not an owner, of the software. The Court also notes that a complete prohibition on transfer of the software is not an essential requirement of a license under the Ninth Circuit's holding in Wall Data. The license at issue in Wall Data did not prohibit transfer of the software. See Wall Data, 447 F.3d at 775 n. 5; see also Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc., -- F. Supp. 2d --, No. C07-1189RAJ, 2008 WL 2199682, at *7 (W.D. Wash. May 20, 2008) (the license in Wall Data "imposed no limits on resale of the software").

MDY's counsel also asserted at oral argument that Wall Data is distinguishable from this case because Wall Data involved a negotiated license between the software vendor and the software purchaser, not a standard form license like that contained in the WoW game.

MDY is mistaken. The software used in Wall Data was purchased through an approved vendor and was governed by "volume license booklets." 447 F.3d at 774. The transaction included a "shrink-wrap license, click-through license, and volume license booklets." Id. at 775. The specific license at issue was the "standard" click-through license. Id. at 775 n.5.

The Blizzard license in this case is also a standard click-through license."

Nope, MDY v Blizzard doesn't mention shrink-wrap licenses at all...sigh. Now, please, before you post again, read the Groklaw article. Read it twice. Because MDY v Blizzard is binding precedent and on point.

I'm not disputing your points or anything, but I just want to say that Groklaw really dropped from my sources-to-trust list.

PJ believes that the Psystar case is related to the SCO case, and is part of a concentrated effort to... Destroy the GPL.

Just to let you know that PJ is turning into somewhat of a black helicopter aficionado.