Comment This result was reached in 1996 in a Fed. Ct. App. (Score 1) 640
I am not a legal professional.
I read another comment about shrink wrap licenses being unenforceable. This is untrue. I know people on Slashdot don't RTFA but don't pretend to know the current law on IP/contract law.
In ProCD, Inc., v Zeidenberg 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. Ct. App. 1996) the Court of Appeals for the 7th circuit (Chicago is within the 7th) held, "Shrinkwrap licenses are enforceable unless their terms are objectionable on grounds applicable to contracts in general (for example, if they violate a rule of positive law, or if they are unconscionable)."
ProCD held that acceptance did not occur when software is purchased, but when the user clicks I AGREE to the EULA. Under this holding, customers can get a refund if they do not accept the proposed terms of the contract. This CA case furthers this general view of offer and acceptance under contract law.
I read another comment about shrink wrap licenses being unenforceable. This is untrue. I know people on Slashdot don't RTFA but don't pretend to know the current law on IP/contract law.
In ProCD, Inc., v Zeidenberg 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. Ct. App. 1996) the Court of Appeals for the 7th circuit (Chicago is within the 7th) held, "Shrinkwrap licenses are enforceable unless their terms are objectionable on grounds applicable to contracts in general (for example, if they violate a rule of positive law, or if they are unconscionable)."
ProCD held that acceptance did not occur when software is purchased, but when the user clicks I AGREE to the EULA. Under this holding, customers can get a refund if they do not accept the proposed terms of the contract. This CA case furthers this general view of offer and acceptance under contract law.
