ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg case brief summary
86 F.3d 1447 (1996)
CASE FACTS
Appellant included a shrink-wrap license in its packaged software. Appellant also chose to discriminate in its pricing of the software between commercial and non-commercial users. Appellee purchased a consumer package of the software, but chose to ignore the license restricting its use to non-commercial purposes. Seeking to enforce the license, appellant filed for an injunction. The trial court denied the injunction, holding that the license was ineffectual because the terms did not appear on the outside of the package.
DISCUSSION
The court reversed the denial of the injunction since under ordinary contract principles, appellant's license was binding because appellee had the opportunity to review its terms before being bound.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials
.
86 F.3d 1447 (1996)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Appellant sought review of the order of
the United States District Court for the Western District of
Wisconsin, which declined to issue appellant an injunction on the
basis that its license was ineffectual since it was contained within
packaged software.CASE FACTS
Appellant included a shrink-wrap license in its packaged software. Appellant also chose to discriminate in its pricing of the software between commercial and non-commercial users. Appellee purchased a consumer package of the software, but chose to ignore the license restricting its use to non-commercial purposes. Seeking to enforce the license, appellant filed for an injunction. The trial court denied the injunction, holding that the license was ineffectual because the terms did not appear on the outside of the package.
DISCUSSION
- On appeal, the court held that the license was to be treated as an ordinary contract accompanying the sale of products.
- While the terms of the license were included within the package, its terms afforded the purchaser an opportunity to review the product and its terms before being bound.
- Since the license agreement was a two-party contract, it was not equivalent to the rights of copyright.
The court reversed the denial of the injunction since under ordinary contract principles, appellant's license was binding because appellee had the opportunity to review its terms before being bound.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials
.
No comments:
Post a Comment