Newsgroups: comp.lang.smalltalk
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!news.mathworks.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!swrinde!sgigate.sgi.com!sdd.hp.com!hplabs!hplextra!hplb!scrl
From: scrl@hplb.hpl.hp.com (Simon Lewis)
Subject: Re: PPD legal issue?
Sender: news@hplb.hpl.hp.com (Usenet News Administrator)
Message-ID: <Dn3904.Enn@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 19:04:52 GMT
References: <311FFF60.6D75@hpato.aus.hp.com> <4gcl7n$i9a@sundog.tiac.net>
Nntp-Posting-Host: mcgrew.hpl.hp.com
Organization: Hewlett Packard Laboratories, Bristol, UK.
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL0.7]
Lines: 20

Joe Kinsella (jkinsella@procd.com) wrote:

> If you are following any of the current legislation regarding shrinkwrap license agreements, you may 
> questions whether ANY clause in a shrinkwrap license is defensible.  A recent court decision in 
> Indiana proposes the consumers cannot be legally bound by the terms of a shrinkwrap license.  This 
> does not deny the obvious creative and intellectual rights of PPD software--but would seek to prevent 
> the enforceability of clauses such as the one you mention--which the consumer is not aware of at the 
> time of purchase.

Except that we're not talking about a consumer shrink-wrap licence. We're
talking about one which is NEGOTIATED PRIOR to purchase.  Thus, both
parties are aware of all clauses, some of which are what are causing PPD
customers not to want to enter into the contract. 

Simon.

                ----------------------------------------- 
                 Simon C R Lewis -> scrl@hplb.hpl.hp.com
                 Hewlett-Packard Laboratories Bristol UK
                ----------------------------------------- 
