Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Pielorinho" data-source="post: 48552" data-attributes="member: 259">I think the controversy comes from the ambiguous state of software.If I buy a tennis racket, I could then come up with a new sport, Xtreme Frisbee Tennis, in which you smack frisbees at each other at a relentless pace.  If the tennis racket company told me to stop, I could freely ignore them.  If a tennis racket company tried to sell their rackets with a contract forbidding them to be used in Xtreme Frisbee Tennis, people would look askance, and the contract might not hold weight in court (hee hee).If I buy a seat at a restaurant, then it's very clear that I don't get to use this seat for whatever I want: my uses are very limited.If I purchase Microsoft Word, and I write a document in it, I can sell that document.  If it turned out that Microsoft had put a clause in thier user agreement stating that they were to be paid royalties on all documents produced, I might have a good case for weaseling out of that requirement in court.As for a computer game?  Is it a Tennis racket, a restaurant, or a word processor?Contract law isn't supreme; it's balanced against other considerations.  I don't think this one has been quite figured out yet.Daniel</blockquote>