Recently, I discussed the Vernor v. Autodesk case under the blog posting “Does Copyright Law Prohibit the Sale of Used Software on eBay?”. After Autodesk got a few of Timothy Vernor’s auction listings for used copies of AUTOCAD bounced off of eBay, Vernor filed a lawsuit asking for a declaratory judgment that his sale of the used software was legal.
Rather than backing down, Autodesk asked for a dismissal of Vernor’s lawsuit or for a summary judgment ruling in its favor. The court refused Autodesk’s request. After doing numerous somersaults and back flips through diverging case law precedent, a federal court in the state of Washington decided that Autodesk had sold rather than licensed copies of AUTOCAD to a Seattle architecture firm. The Seattle architecture firm subsequently sold the copies to Vernor. As a result, the first sale doctrine applies
to the AUTOCAD copies and Vernor’s sale of the used AUTOCAD software on eBay is not
copyright infringement.
I wish I could stop my blog entry right here and tell you that the court's ruling is the end of the story. But that would make life too easy. So I continue . . .
The court also said that Autodesk’s sale of the software to the architecture firm included contractual restrictions on use and transfer of the software. Those restrictions come from a license agreement which Autodesk includes inside the box of each AUTOCAD copy. Hence, the Vernor v. Autodesk lawsuit continues on the questions of whether the AUTOCAD license is unconscionable (i.e.,grossly unfair), whether Autodesk’s use of the license constitutes copyright misuse, and whether the license is even applicable to Vernor or his eBay customers.
You can read the Vernor v. Autodesk order about this matter online.
