[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: "Double" Licenses--enforceability of shrinkwrap and clickwrap licenses
- To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
- Subject: Re: "Double" Licenses--enforceability of shrinkwrap and clickwrap licenses
- From: David_Mirchin@silverplatter.com
- Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 20:07:55 EST
- Reply-To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
- Sender: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
In this discussion, there have been many comments which stated outright or implied that shrink-wrap or click-through licenses are not enforceable. >From my reading of the case law, this is simply not true: shrink-wraps and click-through licenses are enforceable. Courts in different countries and various jurisdictions in the United States have held them to be enforceable. If there are more recent cases or statutes which have overturned the cases I mention below, I would be very interested in being referred to them. 1. As for enforceability of shrinkwrap licenses, the first case to unambiguously hold that they are enforceable is the Scottish case of Beta Computers (Europe) Limited v. Adobe Systems (Europe) Limited. FSR (1996) 367. 2. In the United States, ProCD v. Zeidenberg (7th Cir., June 20, 1996) held shrink-wraps enforceable. In dicta, it approved of "click-wraps". 3. The ProCD case has been followed by other courts. For example, in Hill v. Gateway 2000 (7th Circuit, January 6, 1997) the court permitted phone orders of goods, with the contract to follow. It held contract terms provided in a Gateway 2000 computer box were enforceable, as long as a refund was offered. http://www.law.emory.edu/7circuit/jan97/96-3294.html 4. In Brower v. Gateway 2000, Inc. (1998 N.Y. Slip Op. 07522, 1998 WL 481066 (N.Y.A.D. 1 Dept.), Supreme Court Appellate Division, First Department, August 13, 1998, the court upheld the enforceability of shrinkwrap license agreement, including the arbitration clause in question, which was included in the box in which the computer was shipped to the consumer. 5. As for the enforceability of click-through licenses, CompuServe v. Patterson (6th Circuit, July 22, 1996) held these licenses to be enforceable. http://www.law.emory.edu/6circuit/july96/96a0228p.06.html 6. More recently, in the California spamming case of Hotmail v. Van$ Money Pie. (N.D. Cal. April 20, 1998) the court relied on the enforceability of a click-through license to issue a preliminary injunction. It is true that this did not go to a full trial, and therefore cannot be relied upon to the same degree as the CompuServe v. Patterson decision. SilverPlatter is interested in using licenses which are enforceable, and which address our interests as well as those of our customers. Click-through licenses offer the possibility of rapidly delivering products to our customers, and at a meaningfully lower cost to the customers and to us. David Mirchin Vice President & General Counsel SilverPlatter Information, Inc. tel: 781-769-2599, ext. 235 davidm@silverplatter.com
- Prev by Date: MARS Hot Topics Meeting at Midwinter
- Next by Date: RE: "Double" Licenses
- Prev by thread: "Double Licenses" Thread
- Next by thread: MARS Hot Topics Meeting at Midwinter
- Index(es):