Sony's Station.com Taken Offline

[Owyn_Merrilin]

It probably has something to do with the "phasing back PSN" thing. Since DCUO and Free Realms are on PS3, too.

But that offical statement doesn't really fit that idea, does it? It could be that SOE had info stolen, too.

Could someone do some digging on this? I need to know if I should cancel my card, I had a Star Wars Galaxies account a while ago. I really wouldn't have the first clue about finding out if SOE has been breached...

don't cancel it... if someone fraudulently uses you credit card not only will you be able to have the charge adjusted b ut you can sue sony ^_^ but if you have a debit card... erhm yeah cancel it

nope.jpg

Im pretty damn sure that those terms and conditions you agree too when signing up have "Thou shalt not sue us" somewhere in there.

Do yourself a favor. Read up on Uniform Commerce Code.

What does the UCC say? Because I just read the recently issued Supreme Court decision in ATT v. Concepcion and it says that if you agree to a contract clause waiving your right to bring a class action lawsuit and, instead, requiring that any claim you may have be submitted to arbitration, then you're stuck with that agreement and to arbitration you must go. No class action for you!! Next!!

The ATT case does suggest that you can agree to waive your rights to sue for damages, at least as part of a class action.

Part of the UCC defines what is and is not a legitimate contract. And, an EULA does not meet those requirements. Therefore, an EULA is not a contract an will not hold up in court.

Wrong. Just plain wrong. A sampling of the many court opinions to the contrary are listed below.

See ProCD, Inc., v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996) (upholding the validity and enforceability of a shrink-wrapped EULA).

See Hill v. Gateway2000, Inc., 105 F.3d 1147, 1149 (7th Cir. 1997) (holding that contract terms inside a box of software were binding on consumer who subsequently used it).

See Mudd-Lyman Sales and Serv. Corp v. UPS, Inc., 236 F.Supp. 907 (N.D. Ill. 2002) (ruling that plaintiff accepted terms of license by breaking shrink-wrap seal and by its on-screen acceptance of terms of software license agreement).

See M.A. Mortenson Co. v. Timberline Software Corp., 140 Wn.2d 568 (Supreme Court of Washington, 2000) (holding that the licensing agreement set forth in the software packaging and instruction manuals was part of a valid contract).

See Arizona Cartridge Remanufacturers Ass'n v. Lexmark Int'l, Inc., 421 F.3d 981 (9th Cir. 2005) (upholding the validity of a shrink-wrapped license because the box provided clear notice of the terms and the box had been opened).

See Brower v. Gateway 2000, Inc., 676 N.Y.S.2d 569 (New York Supreme Ct. App. Div. [Aug.] 1998) (holding that a shrink-wrapped contract was formed when the plaintiffs retained the software for longer than the 30 day "approve or return" period).

See Rogers v. Dell Computer Corp., 2005 WL 1519233 (Okla. June 28, 2005) (holding that a contract was formed when a computer was ordered by telephone and terms contained in box were disregarded).

See Levy v. Gateway 2000, 1997 WL 823611 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1997) (holding that consumer assented to EULA by keeping the product).

See I-Systems, Inc. v. Softwares, Inc., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6001 (D. Minn. Mar. 29, 2004) (denying summary judgment in part by upholding I-Systems' click-through and shrink-wrap licenses).

See Net2Phone, Inc. v. State ex rel Consumer Cause, Inc., 109Cal. App. 4th 583 (Cal. App. June 9, 2003) (implicitly upholding Net2Phone's forum selection clause, even though the user agreement was formed only through a hyper-linked contract with the language "by using the site or materials, you agree . . . .").

See Lively v IJAM, Inc., 2005 OK Civ. App. 29 (2005) (holding that an enforceable contract was formed when a computer was ordered by telephone and terms contained in box were disregarded).

See Rinaldi v. Iomega, 1999 WL 1442014 (Del. Super. Sept. 3, 1999) (enforcing a disclaimer of warranties contained inside product packaging when there was a refund opportunity).

See Westendorf v. Gateway 2000, Inc., 2000 WL 307369 (Del. Ch. Ct., March 16, 2000) (enforcing licensing agreement contained in the packaging even though the computer was paid for by someone else).

See Vernor v. Autodesk, No. 09-35969. DC No. 2:07-cv-01189-RAJ (2010) (concluding that a shrink-wrapped EULA created a license rather than a sale of the underlying software with the consequence that copyright law's first-sale doctrine did not apply).

What is it with you and EULAs? Also, why are you still using Vernor v. Autodesk? It's not a final ruling, and the one you're citing actually overturned one from a lower court that said exactly what the guy you were trying to refute thought the law said. I'm not up on the other cases, though; I'm going to have to go through those when I get the chance. Would you mind PMing a copy of this post to me so I can look through it at a later date? I'd do it now, but it's finals week and I don't have time for that kind of extracurricular research.

Also, to everyone who is having problems with captchas in non-roman alphabets, just leave the section with the weird alphabet blank. As long as you get the word that is possible to type on a standard keyboard, it will go through.

Now, OT: I'm starting to feel bad for Sony. Their security is obviously full of holes, but it's starting to go beyond Sony reaping their own reward and into the territory of making fun of the mentally challenged kid.

 

[JDKJ]

It probably has something to do with the "phasing back PSN" thing. Since DCUO and Free Realms are on PS3, too.

But that offical statement doesn't really fit that idea, does it? It could be that SOE had info stolen, too.

Could someone do some digging on this? I need to know if I should cancel my card, I had a Star Wars Galaxies account a while ago. I really wouldn't have the first clue about finding out if SOE has been breached...

don't cancel it... if someone fraudulently uses you credit card not only will you be able to have the charge adjusted b ut you can sue sony ^_^ but if you have a debit card... erhm yeah cancel it

nope.jpg

Im pretty damn sure that those terms and conditions you agree too when signing up have "Thou shalt not sue us" somewhere in there.

Do yourself a favor. Read up on Uniform Commerce Code.

What does the UCC say? Because I just read the recently issued Supreme Court decision in ATT v. Concepcion and it says that if you agree to a contract clause waiving your right to bring a class action lawsuit and, instead, requiring that any claim you may have be submitted to arbitration, then you're stuck with that agreement and to arbitration you must go. No class action for you!! Next!!

The ATT case does suggest that you can agree to waive your rights to sue for damages, at least as part of a class action.

Part of the UCC defines what is and is not a legitimate contract. And, an EULA does not meet those requirements. Therefore, an EULA is not a contract an will not hold up in court.

Wrong. Just plain wrong. A sampling of the many court opinions to the contrary are listed below.

See ProCD, Inc., v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996) (upholding the validity and enforceability of a shrink-wrapped EULA).

See Hill v. Gateway2000, Inc., 105 F.3d 1147, 1149 (7th Cir. 1997) (holding that contract terms inside a box of software were binding on consumer who subsequently used it).

See Mudd-Lyman Sales and Serv. Corp v. UPS, Inc., 236 F.Supp. 907 (N.D. Ill. 2002) (ruling that plaintiff accepted terms of license by breaking shrink-wrap seal and by its on-screen acceptance of terms of software license agreement).

See M.A. Mortenson Co. v. Timberline Software Corp., 140 Wn.2d 568 (Supreme Court of Washington, 2000) (holding that the licensing agreement set forth in the software packaging and instruction manuals was part of a valid contract).

See Arizona Cartridge Remanufacturers Ass'n v. Lexmark Int'l, Inc., 421 F.3d 981 (9th Cir. 2005) (upholding the validity of a shrink-wrapped license because the box provided clear notice of the terms and the box had been opened).

See Brower v. Gateway 2000, Inc., 676 N.Y.S.2d 569 (New York Supreme Ct. App. Div. [Aug.] 1998) (holding that a shrink-wrapped contract was formed when the plaintiffs retained the software for longer than the 30 day "approve or return" period).

See Rogers v. Dell Computer Corp., 2005 WL 1519233 (Okla. June 28, 2005) (holding that a contract was formed when a computer was ordered by telephone and terms contained in box were disregarded).

See Levy v. Gateway 2000, 1997 WL 823611 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1997) (holding that consumer assented to EULA by keeping the product).

See I-Systems, Inc. v. Softwares, Inc., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6001 (D. Minn. Mar. 29, 2004) (denying summary judgment in part by upholding I-Systems' click-through and shrink-wrap licenses).

See Net2Phone, Inc. v. State ex rel Consumer Cause, Inc., 109Cal. App. 4th 583 (Cal. App. June 9, 2003) (implicitly upholding Net2Phone's forum selection clause, even though the user agreement was formed only through a hyper-linked contract with the language "by using the site or materials, you agree . . . .").

See Lively v IJAM, Inc., 2005 OK Civ. App. 29 (2005) (holding that an enforceable contract was formed when a computer was ordered by telephone and terms contained in box were disregarded).

See Rinaldi v. Iomega, 1999 WL 1442014 (Del. Super. Sept. 3, 1999) (enforcing a disclaimer of warranties contained inside product packaging when there was a refund opportunity).

See Westendorf v. Gateway 2000, Inc., 2000 WL 307369 (Del. Ch. Ct., March 16, 2000) (enforcing licensing agreement contained in the packaging even though the computer was paid for by someone else).

See Vernor v. Autodesk, No. 09-35969. DC No. 2:07-cv-01189-RAJ (2010) (concluding that a shrink-wrapped EULA created a license rather than a sale of the underlying software with the consequence that copyright law's first-sale doctrine did not apply).

What is it with you and EULAs? Also, why are you still using Vernor v. Autodesk? It's not a final ruling, and the one you're citing actually overturned one from a lower court that said exactly what the guy you were trying to refute thought the law said. I'm not up on the other cases, though; I'm going to have to go through those when I get the chance. Would you mind PMing a copy of this post to me so I can look through it at a later date? I'd do it now, but it's finals week and I don't have time for that kind of extracurricular research.

Also, to everyone who is having problems with captchas in non-roman alphabets, just leave the section with the weird alphabet blank. As long as you get the word that is possible to type on a standard keyboard, it will go through.

Now, OT: I'm starting to feel bad for Sony. Their security is obviously full of holes, but it's starting to go beyond Sony reaping their own reward and into the territory of making fun of the mentally challenged kid.

You mean the part where it bothers me that some labor under the thoroughly mistaken assumption that EULAs are categorically unenforceable -- as is claimed here at least once a day? I'm not sure. I'm guessing it has something to do with my hating to see someone fall victim to their own ignorance.

Who cares what a district court thinks once the appellate court has overruled them? That the baby-sitter previously decided that the child can stay up until 3:00AM watching television and eating ice cream from the tub doesn't matter once the parents get back home and tell the child to put the ice cream down and take its ass right off to bed.

EDIT: And, as a statistical matter, the rulings of a three-judge panel are rarely overturned by the full nine-judge panel rehearing the matter en banc. Which makes sense. It takes five judges of an en banc panel to overturn the three-judge panel's decision. The en banc panel is already short the three judges who ruled before on the matter. All it takes is two more judges of the remaining six judges to agree with them and their previous ruling stands. That's two outta six or one outta three. Those probabilities favor the decision of the three-judge panel.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

It probably has something to do with the "phasing back PSN" thing. Since DCUO and Free Realms are on PS3, too.

But that offical statement doesn't really fit that idea, does it? It could be that SOE had info stolen, too.

Could someone do some digging on this? I need to know if I should cancel my card, I had a Star Wars Galaxies account a while ago. I really wouldn't have the first clue about finding out if SOE has been breached...

don't cancel it... if someone fraudulently uses you credit card not only will you be able to have the charge adjusted b ut you can sue sony ^_^ but if you have a debit card... erhm yeah cancel it

nope.jpg

Im pretty damn sure that those terms and conditions you agree too when signing up have "Thou shalt not sue us" somewhere in there.

Do yourself a favor. Read up on Uniform Commerce Code.

What does the UCC say? Because I just read the recently issued Supreme Court decision in ATT v. Concepcion and it says that if you agree to a contract clause waiving your right to bring a class action lawsuit and, instead, requiring that any claim you may have be submitted to arbitration, then you're stuck with that agreement and to arbitration you must go. No class action for you!! Next!!

The ATT case does suggest that you can agree to waive your rights to sue for damages, at least as part of a class action.

Part of the UCC defines what is and is not a legitimate contract. And, an EULA does not meet those requirements. Therefore, an EULA is not a contract an will not hold up in court.

Wrong. Just plain wrong. A sampling of the many court opinions to the contrary are listed below.

See ProCD, Inc., v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996) (upholding the validity and enforceability of a shrink-wrapped EULA).

See Hill v. Gateway2000, Inc., 105 F.3d 1147, 1149 (7th Cir. 1997) (holding that contract terms inside a box of software were binding on consumer who subsequently used it).

See Mudd-Lyman Sales and Serv. Corp v. UPS, Inc., 236 F.Supp. 907 (N.D. Ill. 2002) (ruling that plaintiff accepted terms of license by breaking shrink-wrap seal and by its on-screen acceptance of terms of software license agreement).

See M.A. Mortenson Co. v. Timberline Software Corp., 140 Wn.2d 568 (Supreme Court of Washington, 2000) (holding that the licensing agreement set forth in the software packaging and instruction manuals was part of a valid contract).

See Arizona Cartridge Remanufacturers Ass'n v. Lexmark Int'l, Inc., 421 F.3d 981 (9th Cir. 2005) (upholding the validity of a shrink-wrapped license because the box provided clear notice of the terms and the box had been opened).

See Brower v. Gateway 2000, Inc., 676 N.Y.S.2d 569 (New York Supreme Ct. App. Div. [Aug.] 1998) (holding that a shrink-wrapped contract was formed when the plaintiffs retained the software for longer than the 30 day "approve or return" period).

See Rogers v. Dell Computer Corp., 2005 WL 1519233 (Okla. June 28, 2005) (holding that a contract was formed when a computer was ordered by telephone and terms contained in box were disregarded).

See Levy v. Gateway 2000, 1997 WL 823611 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1997) (holding that consumer assented to EULA by keeping the product).

See I-Systems, Inc. v. Softwares, Inc., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6001 (D. Minn. Mar. 29, 2004) (denying summary judgment in part by upholding I-Systems' click-through and shrink-wrap licenses).

See Net2Phone, Inc. v. State ex rel Consumer Cause, Inc., 109Cal. App. 4th 583 (Cal. App. June 9, 2003) (implicitly upholding Net2Phone's forum selection clause, even though the user agreement was formed only through a hyper-linked contract with the language "by using the site or materials, you agree . . . .").

See Lively v IJAM, Inc., 2005 OK Civ. App. 29 (2005) (holding that an enforceable contract was formed when a computer was ordered by telephone and terms contained in box were disregarded).

See Rinaldi v. Iomega, 1999 WL 1442014 (Del. Super. Sept. 3, 1999) (enforcing a disclaimer of warranties contained inside product packaging when there was a refund opportunity).

See Westendorf v. Gateway 2000, Inc., 2000 WL 307369 (Del. Ch. Ct., March 16, 2000) (enforcing licensing agreement contained in the packaging even though the computer was paid for by someone else).

See Vernor v. Autodesk, No. 09-35969. DC No. 2:07-cv-01189-RAJ (2010) (concluding that a shrink-wrapped EULA created a license rather than a sale of the underlying software with the consequence that copyright law's first-sale doctrine did not apply).

What is it with you and EULAs? Also, why are you still using Vernor v. Autodesk? It's not a final ruling, and the one you're citing actually overturned one from a lower court that said exactly what the guy you were trying to refute thought the law said. I'm not up on the other cases, though; I'm going to have to go through those when I get the chance. Would you mind PMing a copy of this post to me so I can look through it at a later date? I'd do it now, but it's finals week and I don't have time for that kind of extracurricular research.

Also, to everyone who is having problems with captchas in non-roman alphabets, just leave the section with the weird alphabet blank. As long as you get the word that is possible to type on a standard keyboard, it will go through.

Now, OT: I'm starting to feel bad for Sony. Their security is obviously full of holes, but it's starting to go beyond Sony reaping their own reward and into the territory of making fun of the mentally challenged kid.

You mean the part where it bothers me that some labor under the thoroughly mistaken assumption that EULAs are categorically unenforceable -- as is claimed here at least once a day? I'm not sure. I'm guessing it has something to do with my hating to see someone fall victim to their own ignorance.

Who cares what a district court thinks once the appellate court has overruled them? That the baby-sitter previously decided that the child can stay up until 3:00AM watching television and eating ice cream from the tub doesn't matter once the parents get back home and tell the child to put the ice cream down and take its ass right off to bed.

Except that in your metaphor, the lower court was the child, and the appellate court, which from what you yourself have told me was only partially present, and is going to have a new ruling at a later date with the full court, is the older sibling. The full court would be the baby sitter, and the supremes are the parents. The parents haven't ruled yet, and the Vernor V. Autodesk case is a clear example that this is an area of case law that has yet to be fully decided. You may be a lawyer, but you aren't the only one with a working knowledge of the court system. Besides, from what you've told me about your particular area of expertise, EULAs aren't it.

Edit: And I was serious about wanting that PM. I don't have enough time right now to read that, but my schedule is going to free up significantly after Thursday.

 

[JDKJ]

It probably has something to do with the "phasing back PSN" thing. Since DCUO and Free Realms are on PS3, too.

But that offical statement doesn't really fit that idea, does it? It could be that SOE had info stolen, too.

Could someone do some digging on this? I need to know if I should cancel my card, I had a Star Wars Galaxies account a while ago. I really wouldn't have the first clue about finding out if SOE has been breached...

don't cancel it... if someone fraudulently uses you credit card not only will you be able to have the charge adjusted b ut you can sue sony ^_^ but if you have a debit card... erhm yeah cancel it

nope.jpg

Im pretty damn sure that those terms and conditions you agree too when signing up have "Thou shalt not sue us" somewhere in there.

Do yourself a favor. Read up on Uniform Commerce Code.

What does the UCC say? Because I just read the recently issued Supreme Court decision in ATT v. Concepcion and it says that if you agree to a contract clause waiving your right to bring a class action lawsuit and, instead, requiring that any claim you may have be submitted to arbitration, then you're stuck with that agreement and to arbitration you must go. No class action for you!! Next!!

The ATT case does suggest that you can agree to waive your rights to sue for damages, at least as part of a class action.

Part of the UCC defines what is and is not a legitimate contract. And, an EULA does not meet those requirements. Therefore, an EULA is not a contract an will not hold up in court.

Wrong. Just plain wrong. A sampling of the many court opinions to the contrary are listed below.

See ProCD, Inc., v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996) (upholding the validity and enforceability of a shrink-wrapped EULA).

See Hill v. Gateway2000, Inc., 105 F.3d 1147, 1149 (7th Cir. 1997) (holding that contract terms inside a box of software were binding on consumer who subsequently used it).

See Mudd-Lyman Sales and Serv. Corp v. UPS, Inc., 236 F.Supp. 907 (N.D. Ill. 2002) (ruling that plaintiff accepted terms of license by breaking shrink-wrap seal and by its on-screen acceptance of terms of software license agreement).

See M.A. Mortenson Co. v. Timberline Software Corp., 140 Wn.2d 568 (Supreme Court of Washington, 2000) (holding that the licensing agreement set forth in the software packaging and instruction manuals was part of a valid contract).

See Arizona Cartridge Remanufacturers Ass'n v. Lexmark Int'l, Inc., 421 F.3d 981 (9th Cir. 2005) (upholding the validity of a shrink-wrapped license because the box provided clear notice of the terms and the box had been opened).

See Brower v. Gateway 2000, Inc., 676 N.Y.S.2d 569 (New York Supreme Ct. App. Div. [Aug.] 1998) (holding that a shrink-wrapped contract was formed when the plaintiffs retained the software for longer than the 30 day "approve or return" period).

See Rogers v. Dell Computer Corp., 2005 WL 1519233 (Okla. June 28, 2005) (holding that a contract was formed when a computer was ordered by telephone and terms contained in box were disregarded).

See Levy v. Gateway 2000, 1997 WL 823611 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1997) (holding that consumer assented to EULA by keeping the product).

See I-Systems, Inc. v. Softwares, Inc., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6001 (D. Minn. Mar. 29, 2004) (denying summary judgment in part by upholding I-Systems' click-through and shrink-wrap licenses).

See Net2Phone, Inc. v. State ex rel Consumer Cause, Inc., 109Cal. App. 4th 583 (Cal. App. June 9, 2003) (implicitly upholding Net2Phone's forum selection clause, even though the user agreement was formed only through a hyper-linked contract with the language "by using the site or materials, you agree . . . .").

See Lively v IJAM, Inc., 2005 OK Civ. App. 29 (2005) (holding that an enforceable contract was formed when a computer was ordered by telephone and terms contained in box were disregarded).

See Rinaldi v. Iomega, 1999 WL 1442014 (Del. Super. Sept. 3, 1999) (enforcing a disclaimer of warranties contained inside product packaging when there was a refund opportunity).

See Westendorf v. Gateway 2000, Inc., 2000 WL 307369 (Del. Ch. Ct., March 16, 2000) (enforcing licensing agreement contained in the packaging even though the computer was paid for by someone else).

See Vernor v. Autodesk, No. 09-35969. DC No. 2:07-cv-01189-RAJ (2010) (concluding that a shrink-wrapped EULA created a license rather than a sale of the underlying software with the consequence that copyright law's first-sale doctrine did not apply).

What is it with you and EULAs? Also, why are you still using Vernor v. Autodesk? It's not a final ruling, and the one you're citing actually overturned one from a lower court that said exactly what the guy you were trying to refute thought the law said. I'm not up on the other cases, though; I'm going to have to go through those when I get the chance. Would you mind PMing a copy of this post to me so I can look through it at a later date? I'd do it now, but it's finals week and I don't have time for that kind of extracurricular research.

Also, to everyone who is having problems with captchas in non-roman alphabets, just leave the section with the weird alphabet blank. As long as you get the word that is possible to type on a standard keyboard, it will go through.

Now, OT: I'm starting to feel bad for Sony. Their security is obviously full of holes, but it's starting to go beyond Sony reaping their own reward and into the territory of making fun of the mentally challenged kid.

You mean the part where it bothers me that some labor under the thoroughly mistaken assumption that EULAs are categorically unenforceable -- as is claimed here at least once a day? I'm not sure. I'm guessing it has something to do with my hating to see someone fall victim to their own ignorance.

Who cares what a district court thinks once the appellate court has overruled them? That the baby-sitter previously decided that the child can stay up until 3:00AM watching television and eating ice cream from the tub doesn't matter once the parents get back home and tell the child to put the ice cream down and take its ass right off to bed.

Except that in your metaphor, the lower court was the child, and the appellate court, which from what you yourself have told me was only partially present, and is going to have a new ruling at a later date with the full court, is the older sibling. The full court would be the baby sitter, and the supremes are the parents. The parents haven't ruled yet, and the Vernor V. Autodesk case is a clear example that this is an area of case law that has yet to be fully decided. You may be a lawyer, but you aren't the only one with a working knowledge of the court system. Besides, from what you've told me about your particular area of expertise, EULAs aren't it.

Edit: And I was serious about wanting that PM. I don't have enough time right now to read that, but my schedule is going to free up significantly after Thursday.

I PM'd you the citations.

You should also see my edit above re: the probabilities that the three-judge panel's decision will overturned. If Vernor can't get the six remaing judges to overrule their three other brethren. he's stuck. Short of appeal to the Supreme Court. Which is unlike to take the case on a petition for certiorari. That probability's astronomical.

Actually, I told you that my experience doesn't involve any one particular area more than another and is the grab-bag of what's commonly referred to in the industry as "complex business litigation." Much of complex business litigation involves contracts (rarely are the terms of a multi-billion dollar transaction reduced to writing on a cocktail napkin or entered into on a word and a handshake) and, accordingly, contract law. A EULA ain't nothin' more than a contract.

And in my analogy, Vernor is the child, the district court is the baby-sitter, and the appellate court is the parent.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

It probably has something to do with the "phasing back PSN" thing. Since DCUO and Free Realms are on PS3, too.

But that offical statement doesn't really fit that idea, does it? It could be that SOE had info stolen, too.

Could someone do some digging on this? I need to know if I should cancel my card, I had a Star Wars Galaxies account a while ago. I really wouldn't have the first clue about finding out if SOE has been breached...

don't cancel it... if someone fraudulently uses you credit card not only will you be able to have the charge adjusted b ut you can sue sony ^_^ but if you have a debit card... erhm yeah cancel it

nope.jpg

Im pretty damn sure that those terms and conditions you agree too when signing up have "Thou shalt not sue us" somewhere in there.

Do yourself a favor. Read up on Uniform Commerce Code.

What does the UCC say? Because I just read the recently issued Supreme Court decision in ATT v. Concepcion and it says that if you agree to a contract clause waiving your right to bring a class action lawsuit and, instead, requiring that any claim you may have be submitted to arbitration, then you're stuck with that agreement and to arbitration you must go. No class action for you!! Next!!

The ATT case does suggest that you can agree to waive your rights to sue for damages, at least as part of a class action.

Part of the UCC defines what is and is not a legitimate contract. And, an EULA does not meet those requirements. Therefore, an EULA is not a contract an will not hold up in court.

Wrong. Just plain wrong. A sampling of the many court opinions to the contrary are listed below.

See ProCD, Inc., v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996) (upholding the validity and enforceability of a shrink-wrapped EULA).

See Hill v. Gateway2000, Inc., 105 F.3d 1147, 1149 (7th Cir. 1997) (holding that contract terms inside a box of software were binding on consumer who subsequently used it).

See Mudd-Lyman Sales and Serv. Corp v. UPS, Inc., 236 F.Supp. 907 (N.D. Ill. 2002) (ruling that plaintiff accepted terms of license by breaking shrink-wrap seal and by its on-screen acceptance of terms of software license agreement).

See M.A. Mortenson Co. v. Timberline Software Corp., 140 Wn.2d 568 (Supreme Court of Washington, 2000) (holding that the licensing agreement set forth in the software packaging and instruction manuals was part of a valid contract).

See Arizona Cartridge Remanufacturers Ass'n v. Lexmark Int'l, Inc., 421 F.3d 981 (9th Cir. 2005) (upholding the validity of a shrink-wrapped license because the box provided clear notice of the terms and the box had been opened).

See Brower v. Gateway 2000, Inc., 676 N.Y.S.2d 569 (New York Supreme Ct. App. Div. [Aug.] 1998) (holding that a shrink-wrapped contract was formed when the plaintiffs retained the software for longer than the 30 day "approve or return" period).

See Rogers v. Dell Computer Corp., 2005 WL 1519233 (Okla. June 28, 2005) (holding that a contract was formed when a computer was ordered by telephone and terms contained in box were disregarded).

See Levy v. Gateway 2000, 1997 WL 823611 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1997) (holding that consumer assented to EULA by keeping the product).

See I-Systems, Inc. v. Softwares, Inc., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6001 (D. Minn. Mar. 29, 2004) (denying summary judgment in part by upholding I-Systems' click-through and shrink-wrap licenses).

See Net2Phone, Inc. v. State ex rel Consumer Cause, Inc., 109Cal. App. 4th 583 (Cal. App. June 9, 2003) (implicitly upholding Net2Phone's forum selection clause, even though the user agreement was formed only through a hyper-linked contract with the language "by using the site or materials, you agree . . . .").

See Lively v IJAM, Inc., 2005 OK Civ. App. 29 (2005) (holding that an enforceable contract was formed when a computer was ordered by telephone and terms contained in box were disregarded).

See Rinaldi v. Iomega, 1999 WL 1442014 (Del. Super. Sept. 3, 1999) (enforcing a disclaimer of warranties contained inside product packaging when there was a refund opportunity).

See Westendorf v. Gateway 2000, Inc., 2000 WL 307369 (Del. Ch. Ct., March 16, 2000) (enforcing licensing agreement contained in the packaging even though the computer was paid for by someone else).

See Vernor v. Autodesk, No. 09-35969. DC No. 2:07-cv-01189-RAJ (2010) (concluding that a shrink-wrapped EULA created a license rather than a sale of the underlying software with the consequence that copyright law's first-sale doctrine did not apply).

What is it with you and EULAs? Also, why are you still using Vernor v. Autodesk? It's not a final ruling, and the one you're citing actually overturned one from a lower court that said exactly what the guy you were trying to refute thought the law said. I'm not up on the other cases, though; I'm going to have to go through those when I get the chance. Would you mind PMing a copy of this post to me so I can look through it at a later date? I'd do it now, but it's finals week and I don't have time for that kind of extracurricular research.

Also, to everyone who is having problems with captchas in non-roman alphabets, just leave the section with the weird alphabet blank. As long as you get the word that is possible to type on a standard keyboard, it will go through.

Now, OT: I'm starting to feel bad for Sony. Their security is obviously full of holes, but it's starting to go beyond Sony reaping their own reward and into the territory of making fun of the mentally challenged kid.

You mean the part where it bothers me that some labor under the thoroughly mistaken assumption that EULAs are categorically unenforceable -- as is claimed here at least once a day? I'm not sure. I'm guessing it has something to do with my hating to see someone fall victim to their own ignorance.

Who cares what a district court thinks once the appellate court has overruled them? That the baby-sitter previously decided that the child can stay up until 3:00AM watching television and eating ice cream from the tub doesn't matter once the parents get back home and tell the child to put the ice cream down and take its ass right off to bed.

Except that in your metaphor, the lower court was the child, and the appellate court, which from what you yourself have told me was only partially present, and is going to have a new ruling at a later date with the full court, is the older sibling. The full court would be the baby sitter, and the supremes are the parents. The parents haven't ruled yet, and the Vernor V. Autodesk case is a clear example that this is an area of case law that has yet to be fully decided. You may be a lawyer, but you aren't the only one with a working knowledge of the court system. Besides, from what you've told me about your particular area of expertise, EULAs aren't it.

Edit: And I was serious about wanting that PM. I don't have enough time right now to read that, but my schedule is going to free up significantly after Thursday.

I PM'd you the citations.

You should also see my edit above re: the probabilities that the three-judge panel's decision will overturned.

Actually, I told you that my experience doesn't involve any one particular area more than another and is the grab-bag of what's commonly referred to in the industry as "complex business litigation." Much of complex business litigation involves contracts and, accordingly, contract law. A EULA ain't nothin' more than a contract.

And in my analogy, Vernor is the child, the district court is the baby-sitter, and the appellate court is the parent.

Okay, it makes sense that the full appellate court would be more likely to agree with the en banc decision than to overturn it. However, you're ignoring the supreme court in your metaphor -- they're the final word, not the appellate court. That was my point in the expansion. As far as an EULA being a contract; sure, but the question is if it's a valid contract, something that is still up in the air as far as the courts are concerned. I'm not expecting a final, authoritative ruling on the matter until we get a clear ruling from the Supreme Court -- although I guess that's kind of a redundant statement.

Edit: Until then, your opinion is the legal opinion of one lawyer, not the absolute correct interpretation of the law.

 

[JDKJ]

It probably has something to do with the "phasing back PSN" thing. Since DCUO and Free Realms are on PS3, too.

But that offical statement doesn't really fit that idea, does it? It could be that SOE had info stolen, too.

Could someone do some digging on this? I need to know if I should cancel my card, I had a Star Wars Galaxies account a while ago. I really wouldn't have the first clue about finding out if SOE has been breached...

don't cancel it... if someone fraudulently uses you credit card not only will you be able to have the charge adjusted b ut you can sue sony ^_^ but if you have a debit card... erhm yeah cancel it

nope.jpg

Im pretty damn sure that those terms and conditions you agree too when signing up have "Thou shalt not sue us" somewhere in there.

Do yourself a favor. Read up on Uniform Commerce Code.

What does the UCC say? Because I just read the recently issued Supreme Court decision in ATT v. Concepcion and it says that if you agree to a contract clause waiving your right to bring a class action lawsuit and, instead, requiring that any claim you may have be submitted to arbitration, then you're stuck with that agreement and to arbitration you must go. No class action for you!! Next!!

The ATT case does suggest that you can agree to waive your rights to sue for damages, at least as part of a class action.

Part of the UCC defines what is and is not a legitimate contract. And, an EULA does not meet those requirements. Therefore, an EULA is not a contract an will not hold up in court.

Wrong. Just plain wrong. A sampling of the many court opinions to the contrary are listed below.

See ProCD, Inc., v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996) (upholding the validity and enforceability of a shrink-wrapped EULA).

See Hill v. Gateway2000, Inc., 105 F.3d 1147, 1149 (7th Cir. 1997) (holding that contract terms inside a box of software were binding on consumer who subsequently used it).

See Mudd-Lyman Sales and Serv. Corp v. UPS, Inc., 236 F.Supp. 907 (N.D. Ill. 2002) (ruling that plaintiff accepted terms of license by breaking shrink-wrap seal and by its on-screen acceptance of terms of software license agreement).

See M.A. Mortenson Co. v. Timberline Software Corp., 140 Wn.2d 568 (Supreme Court of Washington, 2000) (holding that the licensing agreement set forth in the software packaging and instruction manuals was part of a valid contract).

See Arizona Cartridge Remanufacturers Ass'n v. Lexmark Int'l, Inc., 421 F.3d 981 (9th Cir. 2005) (upholding the validity of a shrink-wrapped license because the box provided clear notice of the terms and the box had been opened).

See Brower v. Gateway 2000, Inc., 676 N.Y.S.2d 569 (New York Supreme Ct. App. Div. [Aug.] 1998) (holding that a shrink-wrapped contract was formed when the plaintiffs retained the software for longer than the 30 day "approve or return" period).

See Rogers v. Dell Computer Corp., 2005 WL 1519233 (Okla. June 28, 2005) (holding that a contract was formed when a computer was ordered by telephone and terms contained in box were disregarded).

See Levy v. Gateway 2000, 1997 WL 823611 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1997) (holding that consumer assented to EULA by keeping the product).

See I-Systems, Inc. v. Softwares, Inc., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6001 (D. Minn. Mar. 29, 2004) (denying summary judgment in part by upholding I-Systems' click-through and shrink-wrap licenses).

See Net2Phone, Inc. v. State ex rel Consumer Cause, Inc., 109Cal. App. 4th 583 (Cal. App. June 9, 2003) (implicitly upholding Net2Phone's forum selection clause, even though the user agreement was formed only through a hyper-linked contract with the language "by using the site or materials, you agree . . . .").

See Lively v IJAM, Inc., 2005 OK Civ. App. 29 (2005) (holding that an enforceable contract was formed when a computer was ordered by telephone and terms contained in box were disregarded).

See Rinaldi v. Iomega, 1999 WL 1442014 (Del. Super. Sept. 3, 1999) (enforcing a disclaimer of warranties contained inside product packaging when there was a refund opportunity).

See Westendorf v. Gateway 2000, Inc., 2000 WL 307369 (Del. Ch. Ct., March 16, 2000) (enforcing licensing agreement contained in the packaging even though the computer was paid for by someone else).

See Vernor v. Autodesk, No. 09-35969. DC No. 2:07-cv-01189-RAJ (2010) (concluding that a shrink-wrapped EULA created a license rather than a sale of the underlying software with the consequence that copyright law's first-sale doctrine did not apply).

What is it with you and EULAs? Also, why are you still using Vernor v. Autodesk? It's not a final ruling, and the one you're citing actually overturned one from a lower court that said exactly what the guy you were trying to refute thought the law said. I'm not up on the other cases, though; I'm going to have to go through those when I get the chance. Would you mind PMing a copy of this post to me so I can look through it at a later date? I'd do it now, but it's finals week and I don't have time for that kind of extracurricular research.

Also, to everyone who is having problems with captchas in non-roman alphabets, just leave the section with the weird alphabet blank. As long as you get the word that is possible to type on a standard keyboard, it will go through.

Now, OT: I'm starting to feel bad for Sony. Their security is obviously full of holes, but it's starting to go beyond Sony reaping their own reward and into the territory of making fun of the mentally challenged kid.

You mean the part where it bothers me that some labor under the thoroughly mistaken assumption that EULAs are categorically unenforceable -- as is claimed here at least once a day? I'm not sure. I'm guessing it has something to do with my hating to see someone fall victim to their own ignorance.

Who cares what a district court thinks once the appellate court has overruled them? That the baby-sitter previously decided that the child can stay up until 3:00AM watching television and eating ice cream from the tub doesn't matter once the parents get back home and tell the child to put the ice cream down and take its ass right off to bed.

Except that in your metaphor, the lower court was the child, and the appellate court, which from what you yourself have told me was only partially present, and is going to have a new ruling at a later date with the full court, is the older sibling. The full court would be the baby sitter, and the supremes are the parents. The parents haven't ruled yet, and the Vernor V. Autodesk case is a clear example that this is an area of case law that has yet to be fully decided. You may be a lawyer, but you aren't the only one with a working knowledge of the court system. Besides, from what you've told me about your particular area of expertise, EULAs aren't it.

Edit: And I was serious about wanting that PM. I don't have enough time right now to read that, but my schedule is going to free up significantly after Thursday.

I PM'd you the citations.

You should also see my edit above re: the probabilities that the three-judge panel's decision will overturned.

Actually, I told you that my experience doesn't involve any one particular area more than another and is the grab-bag of what's commonly referred to in the industry as "complex business litigation." Much of complex business litigation involves contracts and, accordingly, contract law. A EULA ain't nothin' more than a contract.

And in my analogy, Vernor is the child, the district court is the baby-sitter, and the appellate court is the parent.

Okay, it makes sense that the full appellate court would be more likely to agree with the en banc decision than to overturn it. However, you're ignoring the supreme court in your metaphor -- they're the final word, not the appellate court. That was my point in the expansion. As far as an EULA being a contract; sure, but the question is if it's a valid contract, something that is still up in the air as far as the courts are concerned. I'm not expecting a final, authoritative ruling on the matter until we get a clear ruling from the Supreme Court -- although I guess that's kind of a redundant statement.

Edit: Until then, your opinion is the legal opinion of one lawyer, not the absolute correct interpretation of the law.

If Vernor can't get the six remaing judges to overrule their three other brethren, he's stuck. Short of appeal to the Supreme Court. Which is unlikely to take the case on a petition for certiorari. That probability's astronomical. Vernor has better odds with the en banc panel.

Yes, it is just one man's lonesome opinion. But at least it's an educated and informed opinion.

And bear in mind that the Ninth's opinion in the Vernor case isn't primarily concerned with the the enforceability of EULAs. It concerns itself with the difference between a license and an outright sale for the purpose of a first-sale doctrine analysis. In fact, the Court starts out with the presumption that a EULA is a binding contract. Which makes sense. In California, the majority rule is that they are binding contracts. That aspect of California law isn't at all a gray area of the law. It's as clear as Montana sky.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

It probably has something to do with the "phasing back PSN" thing. Since DCUO and Free Realms are on PS3, too.

But that offical statement doesn't really fit that idea, does it? It could be that SOE had info stolen, too.

Could someone do some digging on this? I need to know if I should cancel my card, I had a Star Wars Galaxies account a while ago. I really wouldn't have the first clue about finding out if SOE has been breached...

don't cancel it... if someone fraudulently uses you credit card not only will you be able to have the charge adjusted b ut you can sue sony ^_^ but if you have a debit card... erhm yeah cancel it

nope.jpg

Im pretty damn sure that those terms and conditions you agree too when signing up have "Thou shalt not sue us" somewhere in there.

Do yourself a favor. Read up on Uniform Commerce Code.

What does the UCC say? Because I just read the recently issued Supreme Court decision in ATT v. Concepcion and it says that if you agree to a contract clause waiving your right to bring a class action lawsuit and, instead, requiring that any claim you may have be submitted to arbitration, then you're stuck with that agreement and to arbitration you must go. No class action for you!! Next!!

The ATT case does suggest that you can agree to waive your rights to sue for damages, at least as part of a class action.

Part of the UCC defines what is and is not a legitimate contract. And, an EULA does not meet those requirements. Therefore, an EULA is not a contract an will not hold up in court.

Wrong. Just plain wrong. A sampling of the many court opinions to the contrary are listed below.

See ProCD, Inc., v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996) (upholding the validity and enforceability of a shrink-wrapped EULA).

See Hill v. Gateway2000, Inc., 105 F.3d 1147, 1149 (7th Cir. 1997) (holding that contract terms inside a box of software were binding on consumer who subsequently used it).

See Mudd-Lyman Sales and Serv. Corp v. UPS, Inc., 236 F.Supp. 907 (N.D. Ill. 2002) (ruling that plaintiff accepted terms of license by breaking shrink-wrap seal and by its on-screen acceptance of terms of software license agreement).

See M.A. Mortenson Co. v. Timberline Software Corp., 140 Wn.2d 568 (Supreme Court of Washington, 2000) (holding that the licensing agreement set forth in the software packaging and instruction manuals was part of a valid contract).

See Arizona Cartridge Remanufacturers Ass'n v. Lexmark Int'l, Inc., 421 F.3d 981 (9th Cir. 2005) (upholding the validity of a shrink-wrapped license because the box provided clear notice of the terms and the box had been opened).

See Brower v. Gateway 2000, Inc., 676 N.Y.S.2d 569 (New York Supreme Ct. App. Div. [Aug.] 1998) (holding that a shrink-wrapped contract was formed when the plaintiffs retained the software for longer than the 30 day "approve or return" period).

See Rogers v. Dell Computer Corp., 2005 WL 1519233 (Okla. June 28, 2005) (holding that a contract was formed when a computer was ordered by telephone and terms contained in box were disregarded).

See Levy v. Gateway 2000, 1997 WL 823611 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1997) (holding that consumer assented to EULA by keeping the product).

See I-Systems, Inc. v. Softwares, Inc., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6001 (D. Minn. Mar. 29, 2004) (denying summary judgment in part by upholding I-Systems' click-through and shrink-wrap licenses).

See Net2Phone, Inc. v. State ex rel Consumer Cause, Inc., 109Cal. App. 4th 583 (Cal. App. June 9, 2003) (implicitly upholding Net2Phone's forum selection clause, even though the user agreement was formed only through a hyper-linked contract with the language "by using the site or materials, you agree . . . .").

See Lively v IJAM, Inc., 2005 OK Civ. App. 29 (2005) (holding that an enforceable contract was formed when a computer was ordered by telephone and terms contained in box were disregarded).

See Rinaldi v. Iomega, 1999 WL 1442014 (Del. Super. Sept. 3, 1999) (enforcing a disclaimer of warranties contained inside product packaging when there was a refund opportunity).

See Westendorf v. Gateway 2000, Inc., 2000 WL 307369 (Del. Ch. Ct., March 16, 2000) (enforcing licensing agreement contained in the packaging even though the computer was paid for by someone else).

See Vernor v. Autodesk, No. 09-35969. DC No. 2:07-cv-01189-RAJ (2010) (concluding that a shrink-wrapped EULA created a license rather than a sale of the underlying software with the consequence that copyright law's first-sale doctrine did not apply).

What is it with you and EULAs? Also, why are you still using Vernor v. Autodesk? It's not a final ruling, and the one you're citing actually overturned one from a lower court that said exactly what the guy you were trying to refute thought the law said. I'm not up on the other cases, though; I'm going to have to go through those when I get the chance. Would you mind PMing a copy of this post to me so I can look through it at a later date? I'd do it now, but it's finals week and I don't have time for that kind of extracurricular research.

Also, to everyone who is having problems with captchas in non-roman alphabets, just leave the section with the weird alphabet blank. As long as you get the word that is possible to type on a standard keyboard, it will go through.

Now, OT: I'm starting to feel bad for Sony. Their security is obviously full of holes, but it's starting to go beyond Sony reaping their own reward and into the territory of making fun of the mentally challenged kid.

You mean the part where it bothers me that some labor under the thoroughly mistaken assumption that EULAs are categorically unenforceable -- as is claimed here at least once a day? I'm not sure. I'm guessing it has something to do with my hating to see someone fall victim to their own ignorance.

Who cares what a district court thinks once the appellate court has overruled them? That the baby-sitter previously decided that the child can stay up until 3:00AM watching television and eating ice cream from the tub doesn't matter once the parents get back home and tell the child to put the ice cream down and take its ass right off to bed.

Except that in your metaphor, the lower court was the child, and the appellate court, which from what you yourself have told me was only partially present, and is going to have a new ruling at a later date with the full court, is the older sibling. The full court would be the baby sitter, and the supremes are the parents. The parents haven't ruled yet, and the Vernor V. Autodesk case is a clear example that this is an area of case law that has yet to be fully decided. You may be a lawyer, but you aren't the only one with a working knowledge of the court system. Besides, from what you've told me about your particular area of expertise, EULAs aren't it.

Edit: And I was serious about wanting that PM. I don't have enough time right now to read that, but my schedule is going to free up significantly after Thursday.

I PM'd you the citations.

You should also see my edit above re: the probabilities that the three-judge panel's decision will overturned.

Actually, I told you that my experience doesn't involve any one particular area more than another and is the grab-bag of what's commonly referred to in the industry as "complex business litigation." Much of complex business litigation involves contracts and, accordingly, contract law. A EULA ain't nothin' more than a contract.

And in my analogy, Vernor is the child, the district court is the baby-sitter, and the appellate court is the parent.

Okay, it makes sense that the full appellate court would be more likely to agree with the en banc decision than to overturn it. However, you're ignoring the supreme court in your metaphor -- they're the final word, not the appellate court. That was my point in the expansion. As far as an EULA being a contract; sure, but the question is if it's a valid contract, something that is still up in the air as far as the courts are concerned. I'm not expecting a final, authoritative ruling on the matter until we get a clear ruling from the Supreme Court -- although I guess that's kind of a redundant statement.

Edit: Until then, your opinion is the legal opinion of one lawyer, not the absolute correct interpretation of the law.

If Vernor can't get the six remaing judges to overrule their three other brethren, he's stuck. Short of appeal to the Supreme Court. Which is unlikely to take the case on a petition for certiorari. That probability's astronomical. Vernor has better odds with the en banc panel.

Yes, it is just one man's lonesome opinion. But at least it's an educated and informed opinion.

Come on, now; the odds of the Supreme Court taking any case are astronomical. Vernor V. Autodesk is exactly the sort of case that they take on; any ruling they could give on it would have ridiculously wide reaching implications. Even if they don't take that specific case, one of these days, something similar is going to wind up in front of them. It's too heavily contested an area of law for it not to eventually reach them. As a college student who, assuming he can find a job, will be a social studies teacher a little over a year from now -- a job title which includes the possibility of teaching a civics class -- I'm not exactly ignorant of the way the court system works. While my knowledge of the matter isn't as specialized as yours, it's not exactly lacking, either.

 

[JDKJ]

It probably has something to do with the "phasing back PSN" thing. Since DCUO and Free Realms are on PS3, too.

But that offical statement doesn't really fit that idea, does it? It could be that SOE had info stolen, too.

Could someone do some digging on this? I need to know if I should cancel my card, I had a Star Wars Galaxies account a while ago. I really wouldn't have the first clue about finding out if SOE has been breached...

don't cancel it... if someone fraudulently uses you credit card not only will you be able to have the charge adjusted b ut you can sue sony ^_^ but if you have a debit card... erhm yeah cancel it

nope.jpg

Im pretty damn sure that those terms and conditions you agree too when signing up have "Thou shalt not sue us" somewhere in there.

Do yourself a favor. Read up on Uniform Commerce Code.

What does the UCC say? Because I just read the recently issued Supreme Court decision in ATT v. Concepcion and it says that if you agree to a contract clause waiving your right to bring a class action lawsuit and, instead, requiring that any claim you may have be submitted to arbitration, then you're stuck with that agreement and to arbitration you must go. No class action for you!! Next!!

The ATT case does suggest that you can agree to waive your rights to sue for damages, at least as part of a class action.

Part of the UCC defines what is and is not a legitimate contract. And, an EULA does not meet those requirements. Therefore, an EULA is not a contract an will not hold up in court.

Wrong. Just plain wrong. A sampling of the many court opinions to the contrary are listed below.

See ProCD, Inc., v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996) (upholding the validity and enforceability of a shrink-wrapped EULA).

See Hill v. Gateway2000, Inc., 105 F.3d 1147, 1149 (7th Cir. 1997) (holding that contract terms inside a box of software were binding on consumer who subsequently used it).

See Mudd-Lyman Sales and Serv. Corp v. UPS, Inc., 236 F.Supp. 907 (N.D. Ill. 2002) (ruling that plaintiff accepted terms of license by breaking shrink-wrap seal and by its on-screen acceptance of terms of software license agreement).

See M.A. Mortenson Co. v. Timberline Software Corp., 140 Wn.2d 568 (Supreme Court of Washington, 2000) (holding that the licensing agreement set forth in the software packaging and instruction manuals was part of a valid contract).

See Arizona Cartridge Remanufacturers Ass'n v. Lexmark Int'l, Inc., 421 F.3d 981 (9th Cir. 2005) (upholding the validity of a shrink-wrapped license because the box provided clear notice of the terms and the box had been opened).

See Brower v. Gateway 2000, Inc., 676 N.Y.S.2d 569 (New York Supreme Ct. App. Div. [Aug.] 1998) (holding that a shrink-wrapped contract was formed when the plaintiffs retained the software for longer than the 30 day "approve or return" period).

See Rogers v. Dell Computer Corp., 2005 WL 1519233 (Okla. June 28, 2005) (holding that a contract was formed when a computer was ordered by telephone and terms contained in box were disregarded).

See Levy v. Gateway 2000, 1997 WL 823611 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1997) (holding that consumer assented to EULA by keeping the product).

See I-Systems, Inc. v. Softwares, Inc., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6001 (D. Minn. Mar. 29, 2004) (denying summary judgment in part by upholding I-Systems' click-through and shrink-wrap licenses).

See Net2Phone, Inc. v. State ex rel Consumer Cause, Inc., 109Cal. App. 4th 583 (Cal. App. June 9, 2003) (implicitly upholding Net2Phone's forum selection clause, even though the user agreement was formed only through a hyper-linked contract with the language "by using the site or materials, you agree . . . .").

See Lively v IJAM, Inc., 2005 OK Civ. App. 29 (2005) (holding that an enforceable contract was formed when a computer was ordered by telephone and terms contained in box were disregarded).

See Rinaldi v. Iomega, 1999 WL 1442014 (Del. Super. Sept. 3, 1999) (enforcing a disclaimer of warranties contained inside product packaging when there was a refund opportunity).

See Westendorf v. Gateway 2000, Inc., 2000 WL 307369 (Del. Ch. Ct., March 16, 2000) (enforcing licensing agreement contained in the packaging even though the computer was paid for by someone else).

See Vernor v. Autodesk, No. 09-35969. DC No. 2:07-cv-01189-RAJ (2010) (concluding that a shrink-wrapped EULA created a license rather than a sale of the underlying software with the consequence that copyright law's first-sale doctrine did not apply).

What is it with you and EULAs? Also, why are you still using Vernor v. Autodesk? It's not a final ruling, and the one you're citing actually overturned one from a lower court that said exactly what the guy you were trying to refute thought the law said. I'm not up on the other cases, though; I'm going to have to go through those when I get the chance. Would you mind PMing a copy of this post to me so I can look through it at a later date? I'd do it now, but it's finals week and I don't have time for that kind of extracurricular research.

Also, to everyone who is having problems with captchas in non-roman alphabets, just leave the section with the weird alphabet blank. As long as you get the word that is possible to type on a standard keyboard, it will go through.

Now, OT: I'm starting to feel bad for Sony. Their security is obviously full of holes, but it's starting to go beyond Sony reaping their own reward and into the territory of making fun of the mentally challenged kid.

You mean the part where it bothers me that some labor under the thoroughly mistaken assumption that EULAs are categorically unenforceable -- as is claimed here at least once a day? I'm not sure. I'm guessing it has something to do with my hating to see someone fall victim to their own ignorance.

Who cares what a district court thinks once the appellate court has overruled them? That the baby-sitter previously decided that the child can stay up until 3:00AM watching television and eating ice cream from the tub doesn't matter once the parents get back home and tell the child to put the ice cream down and take its ass right off to bed.

Except that in your metaphor, the lower court was the child, and the appellate court, which from what you yourself have told me was only partially present, and is going to have a new ruling at a later date with the full court, is the older sibling. The full court would be the baby sitter, and the supremes are the parents. The parents haven't ruled yet, and the Vernor V. Autodesk case is a clear example that this is an area of case law that has yet to be fully decided. You may be a lawyer, but you aren't the only one with a working knowledge of the court system. Besides, from what you've told me about your particular area of expertise, EULAs aren't it.

Edit: And I was serious about wanting that PM. I don't have enough time right now to read that, but my schedule is going to free up significantly after Thursday.

I PM'd you the citations.

You should also see my edit above re: the probabilities that the three-judge panel's decision will overturned.

Actually, I told you that my experience doesn't involve any one particular area more than another and is the grab-bag of what's commonly referred to in the industry as "complex business litigation." Much of complex business litigation involves contracts and, accordingly, contract law. A EULA ain't nothin' more than a contract.

And in my analogy, Vernor is the child, the district court is the baby-sitter, and the appellate court is the parent.

Okay, it makes sense that the full appellate court would be more likely to agree with the en banc decision than to overturn it. However, you're ignoring the supreme court in your metaphor -- they're the final word, not the appellate court. That was my point in the expansion. As far as an EULA being a contract; sure, but the question is if it's a valid contract, something that is still up in the air as far as the courts are concerned. I'm not expecting a final, authoritative ruling on the matter until we get a clear ruling from the Supreme Court -- although I guess that's kind of a redundant statement.

Edit: Until then, your opinion is the legal opinion of one lawyer, not the absolute correct interpretation of the law.

If Vernor can't get the six remaing judges to overrule their three other brethren, he's stuck. Short of appeal to the Supreme Court. Which is unlikely to take the case on a petition for certiorari. That probability's astronomical. Vernor has better odds with the en banc panel.

Yes, it is just one man's lonesome opinion. But at least it's an educated and informed opinion.

Come on, now; the odds of the Supreme Court taking any case are astronomical. Vernor V. Autodesk is exactly the sort of case that they take on; any ruling they could give on it would have ridiculously wide reaching implications. Even if they don't take that specific case, one of these days, something similar is going to wind up in front of them. It's too heavily contested an area of law for it not to eventually reach them. As a college student who, assuming he can find a job, will be a social studies teacher a little over a year from now -- a job title which includes the possibility of teaching a civics class -- I'm not exactly ignorant of the way the court system works. While my knowledge of the matter isn't as specialized as yours, it's not exactly lacking, either.

I never intended to suggest that I am somehow better equipped than you to voice an opinion on a legal matter. Nor did I intend to suggest that you aren't equipped to voice an opinion on a legal matter. I know better than to do that. Some of the brightest legal minds I've ever encountered belong to inmates of the prison system. Some of them, despite not having a full high school education, can write a much more compelling writ for habeas corpus that many Harvard- and Yale-educated attorneys I know can. Matter of fact, if I was sitting in a cell and needed a writ of habeas corpus to get my ass outta that cell, I'd probably quicker rely on one of those jail-house lawyers than I would on the Harvard- and Yale-educated types.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

It probably has something to do with the "phasing back PSN" thing. Since DCUO and Free Realms are on PS3, too.

But that offical statement doesn't really fit that idea, does it? It could be that SOE had info stolen, too.

Could someone do some digging on this? I need to know if I should cancel my card, I had a Star Wars Galaxies account a while ago. I really wouldn't have the first clue about finding out if SOE has been breached...

don't cancel it... if someone fraudulently uses you credit card not only will you be able to have the charge adjusted b ut you can sue sony ^_^ but if you have a debit card... erhm yeah cancel it

nope.jpg

Im pretty damn sure that those terms and conditions you agree too when signing up have "Thou shalt not sue us" somewhere in there.

Do yourself a favor. Read up on Uniform Commerce Code.

What does the UCC say? Because I just read the recently issued Supreme Court decision in ATT v. Concepcion and it says that if you agree to a contract clause waiving your right to bring a class action lawsuit and, instead, requiring that any claim you may have be submitted to arbitration, then you're stuck with that agreement and to arbitration you must go. No class action for you!! Next!!

The ATT case does suggest that you can agree to waive your rights to sue for damages, at least as part of a class action.

Part of the UCC defines what is and is not a legitimate contract. And, an EULA does not meet those requirements. Therefore, an EULA is not a contract an will not hold up in court.

Wrong. Just plain wrong. A sampling of the many court opinions to the contrary are listed below.

See ProCD, Inc., v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996) (upholding the validity and enforceability of a shrink-wrapped EULA).

See Hill v. Gateway2000, Inc., 105 F.3d 1147, 1149 (7th Cir. 1997) (holding that contract terms inside a box of software were binding on consumer who subsequently used it).

See Mudd-Lyman Sales and Serv. Corp v. UPS, Inc., 236 F.Supp. 907 (N.D. Ill. 2002) (ruling that plaintiff accepted terms of license by breaking shrink-wrap seal and by its on-screen acceptance of terms of software license agreement).

See M.A. Mortenson Co. v. Timberline Software Corp., 140 Wn.2d 568 (Supreme Court of Washington, 2000) (holding that the licensing agreement set forth in the software packaging and instruction manuals was part of a valid contract).

See Arizona Cartridge Remanufacturers Ass'n v. Lexmark Int'l, Inc., 421 F.3d 981 (9th Cir. 2005) (upholding the validity of a shrink-wrapped license because the box provided clear notice of the terms and the box had been opened).

See Brower v. Gateway 2000, Inc., 676 N.Y.S.2d 569 (New York Supreme Ct. App. Div. [Aug.] 1998) (holding that a shrink-wrapped contract was formed when the plaintiffs retained the software for longer than the 30 day "approve or return" period).

See Rogers v. Dell Computer Corp., 2005 WL 1519233 (Okla. June 28, 2005) (holding that a contract was formed when a computer was ordered by telephone and terms contained in box were disregarded).

See Levy v. Gateway 2000, 1997 WL 823611 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1997) (holding that consumer assented to EULA by keeping the product).

See I-Systems, Inc. v. Softwares, Inc., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6001 (D. Minn. Mar. 29, 2004) (denying summary judgment in part by upholding I-Systems' click-through and shrink-wrap licenses).

See Net2Phone, Inc. v. State ex rel Consumer Cause, Inc., 109Cal. App. 4th 583 (Cal. App. June 9, 2003) (implicitly upholding Net2Phone's forum selection clause, even though the user agreement was formed only through a hyper-linked contract with the language "by using the site or materials, you agree . . . .").

See Lively v IJAM, Inc., 2005 OK Civ. App. 29 (2005) (holding that an enforceable contract was formed when a computer was ordered by telephone and terms contained in box were disregarded).

See Rinaldi v. Iomega, 1999 WL 1442014 (Del. Super. Sept. 3, 1999) (enforcing a disclaimer of warranties contained inside product packaging when there was a refund opportunity).

See Westendorf v. Gateway 2000, Inc., 2000 WL 307369 (Del. Ch. Ct., March 16, 2000) (enforcing licensing agreement contained in the packaging even though the computer was paid for by someone else).

See Vernor v. Autodesk, No. 09-35969. DC No. 2:07-cv-01189-RAJ (2010) (concluding that a shrink-wrapped EULA created a license rather than a sale of the underlying software with the consequence that copyright law's first-sale doctrine did not apply).

What is it with you and EULAs? Also, why are you still using Vernor v. Autodesk? It's not a final ruling, and the one you're citing actually overturned one from a lower court that said exactly what the guy you were trying to refute thought the law said. I'm not up on the other cases, though; I'm going to have to go through those when I get the chance. Would you mind PMing a copy of this post to me so I can look through it at a later date? I'd do it now, but it's finals week and I don't have time for that kind of extracurricular research.

Also, to everyone who is having problems with captchas in non-roman alphabets, just leave the section with the weird alphabet blank. As long as you get the word that is possible to type on a standard keyboard, it will go through.

Now, OT: I'm starting to feel bad for Sony. Their security is obviously full of holes, but it's starting to go beyond Sony reaping their own reward and into the territory of making fun of the mentally challenged kid.

You mean the part where it bothers me that some labor under the thoroughly mistaken assumption that EULAs are categorically unenforceable -- as is claimed here at least once a day? I'm not sure. I'm guessing it has something to do with my hating to see someone fall victim to their own ignorance.

Who cares what a district court thinks once the appellate court has overruled them? That the baby-sitter previously decided that the child can stay up until 3:00AM watching television and eating ice cream from the tub doesn't matter once the parents get back home and tell the child to put the ice cream down and take its ass right off to bed.

Except that in your metaphor, the lower court was the child, and the appellate court, which from what you yourself have told me was only partially present, and is going to have a new ruling at a later date with the full court, is the older sibling. The full court would be the baby sitter, and the supremes are the parents. The parents haven't ruled yet, and the Vernor V. Autodesk case is a clear example that this is an area of case law that has yet to be fully decided. You may be a lawyer, but you aren't the only one with a working knowledge of the court system. Besides, from what you've told me about your particular area of expertise, EULAs aren't it.

Edit: And I was serious about wanting that PM. I don't have enough time right now to read that, but my schedule is going to free up significantly after Thursday.

I PM'd you the citations.

You should also see my edit above re: the probabilities that the three-judge panel's decision will overturned.

Actually, I told you that my experience doesn't involve any one particular area more than another and is the grab-bag of what's commonly referred to in the industry as "complex business litigation." Much of complex business litigation involves contracts and, accordingly, contract law. A EULA ain't nothin' more than a contract.

And in my analogy, Vernor is the child, the district court is the baby-sitter, and the appellate court is the parent.

Okay, it makes sense that the full appellate court would be more likely to agree with the en banc decision than to overturn it. However, you're ignoring the supreme court in your metaphor -- they're the final word, not the appellate court. That was my point in the expansion. As far as an EULA being a contract; sure, but the question is if it's a valid contract, something that is still up in the air as far as the courts are concerned. I'm not expecting a final, authoritative ruling on the matter until we get a clear ruling from the Supreme Court -- although I guess that's kind of a redundant statement.

Edit: Until then, your opinion is the legal opinion of one lawyer, not the absolute correct interpretation of the law.

If Vernor can't get the six remaing judges to overrule their three other brethren, he's stuck. Short of appeal to the Supreme Court. Which is unlikely to take the case on a petition for certiorari. That probability's astronomical. Vernor has better odds with the en banc panel.

Yes, it is just one man's lonesome opinion. But at least it's an educated and informed opinion.

Come on, now; the odds of the Supreme Court taking any case are astronomical. Vernor V. Autodesk is exactly the sort of case that they take on; any ruling they could give on it would have ridiculously wide reaching implications. Even if they don't take that specific case, one of these days, something similar is going to wind up in front of them. It's too heavily contested an area of law for it not to eventually reach them. As a college student who, assuming he can find a job, will be a social studies teacher a little over a year from now -- a job title which includes the possibility of teaching a civics class -- I'm not exactly ignorant of the way the court system works. While my knowledge of the matter isn't as specialized as yours, it's not exactly lacking, either.

I never intended to suggest that I am somehow better equipped than you to voice an opinion on a legal matter. Nor did I intend to suggest that you aren't equipped to voice an opinion on a legal matter. I know better than to do that. Some of the brightest legal minds I've ever encountered belong to inmates of the prison system. Some of them, despite not having a full high school education, can write a much more compelling writ for habeas corpus that many Harvard- and Yale-educated attorneys I know can. Matter of fact, if I was sitting in a cell and needed a writ of habeas corpus to get my ass outta that cell, I'd probably quicker rely on one of those jail-house lawyers than I would on the Harvard- and Yale-educated types.

Fair enough. That post was mainly explaining where I was coming from; I kind of got the feeling from our constant debates that you thought I was mostly talking out of my hind end, when I actually have enough specialized knowledge of the way the system works that I will probably never serve for jury duty. I don't have enough to represent anyone in court, but you get the idea. Like I said in the PM, I enjoy these debates; it's nice to have someone arguing the other side who is able to give a legal basis for his arguments, explaining why he thinks the EULA is valid instead of just going "the EULA says so, so it must be true."

 

[Dogstile]

I hope nothings seriously wrong, but at the same time, well...

I mean, damn, this is entertaining as hell. Sorry Sony, but this is more entertaining than anything I can find on daytime TV, except possibly Mythbusters.

 

[Blindrooster]

It probably has something to do with the "phasing back PSN" thing. Since DCUO and Free Realms are on PS3, too.

But that offical statement doesn't really fit that idea, does it? It could be that SOE had info stolen, too.

Could someone do some digging on this? I need to know if I should cancel my card, I had a Star Wars Galaxies account a while ago. I really wouldn't have the first clue about finding out if SOE has been breached...

Galaxies is shut down at the moment... you cant even access your info. its annoying.

 

[Alphakirby]

Dear Sony,

Love,Everyone

 

[Woem]

Sony's Station.com Taken Offline

Could this have something to do with the second attack?

http://i.joystiq.com/2011/05/02/sony-hit-with-second-attack-loses-12-700-credit-card-nu/

 

[JDKJ]

Sony's Station.com Taken Offline

Could this have something to do with the second attack?

http://i.joystiq.com/2011/05/02/sony-hit-with-second-attack-loses-12-700-credit-card-nu/

Yessiree. They're admitting the hack and a data breach:

Customer Service Notification

May 2, 2011

Dear Valued Sony Online Entertainment Customer:

Our ongoing investigation of illegal intrusions into Sony Online Entertainment systems has discovered that hackers may have obtained personal customer information from SOE systems. We are today advising you that the personal information you provided us in connection with your SOE account may have been stolen in a cyber-attack. Stolen information includes, to the extent you provided it to us, the following: name, address (city, state, zip, country), email address, gender, birthdate, phone number, login name and hashed password.

Customers outside the United States should be advised that we further discovered evidence that information from an outdated database from 2007 containing approximately 12,700 non-US customer credit or debit card numbers and expiration dates (but not credit card security codes) and about 10,700 direct debit records listing bank account numbers of certain customers in Germany, Austria, Netherlands and Spain may have also been obtained - we will be notifying each of those customers promptly.

There is no evidence that our main credit card database was compromised. It is in a completely separate and secured environment.

We had previously believed that SOE customer data had not been obtained in the cyber-attacks on the company, but on May 1st we concluded that SOE account information may have been stolen and we are notifying you as soon as possible.

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

I ain't standing close to anyone at Sony. I damn sure don't want that bad luck rubbing off on me.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

I am sincerely beginning to believe that not only could Sony screw up a wet dream, they could somehow manage to get herpes from it. Sorry, guys, but I'm staying well away from anything with your logo on it until you can prove you're over this bad-luck streak.

 

[JDKJ]

I am sincerely beginning to believe that not only could Sony screw up a wet dream, they could somehow manage to get herpes from it. Sorry, guys, but I'm staying well away from anything with your logo on it until you can prove you're over this bad-luck streak.

My Granny had a favorite saying: "Boy, with your luck, you could fall into a gold mine and come out covered in shit."

 

[Superior Mind]

Pretty thankful right now that when I played DC Online I paid with a pre-loaded gift credit card.

 

[jpblade666]

Can't play poxnora because it was sold to sony and sony's stuff is down... stupid sony.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

I should have mentioned this earlier, but is anyone else reminded of a PS1 era FMV by the screenshot for this article on the front page? I'm reminded specifically of the PS1 Spiderman game. Just something about the way the image was compressed, I guess.

 

[Asuka Soryu]

Poor Sony. If this keeps going, they might die out as a games manafactuer.