BnetD Case Decided

[Arta]

Adding contacts could also(Not implying anything just theorietically) vL could put a line in BNLS contact they can log keys, username, passwords etc. Thats the whole point of reading contracts(I dont, just click and go as I dont have time). Anything can be waivered with a contract in MHO.

It certainly doesn't work that way here. Example:

You are required to sign a contract in order to buy a new car. The contract says that if a serious material flaw in the car causes a fatal or serious accident, the car company cannot be held liable.

That contract would be unenforceable under UK law, because it was unreasonable. More specifically, any product sold here has a warrant of merchantability, and that cannot be waived, because such a waiver would be unreasonable.

Most of the EULAs here that say "no warrant of merchantability, no fitness for a particular purpose, no liability accepted, ... etc" are pretty shakey legally speaking. If, for example, I bought some hospital life support software (or something equally critical) that contained those clauses, and a flaw in it caused someone to die, there's no way a waiver of liability would stand up in court.

[Meh]

I know, you probabley remeber me on a differnet username shortley before June, I live in wales and some stuff has to be done in a certain way but other in a different.

[MyndFyre]

Agree with everything Arta said, but adding an example.

Ford motors manufactures and sells parts for its cars.  Other companies examine those parts and make similar parts with equal attributes, performing the same or better as the OEM.  Why can we not do this with software?

Does Ford sell parts, or the license to use a part?  They make an actual sale.

[iago]

I dont know much about the legalness, but if it's true that the EULA is binding, then what happens if some company includes, "And you must pay us a daily fee of $100 as long as you own this game" somewhere in the middle.  Most (all?) people don't read the EULA, so they would click agree.  Does this mean that everybody who doesn't send in their money can be legally responsible for it?

Probably, but I would think that the company would rather disallow the use of the software than try to collect that.

Also, this is also a very obscure and (again) unlikely situation. If you guys actually look at what *did* happen rather than oddball hypotheticals, then you'd see the crux of the issue.

Again, I'm on the side of BnetD. I think Blizz is lame for pursuing the matter. :-/

Well, the thing is, if I could make money like that I'd do it.  I don't think it's hypothetical at all, because it's a perfectly possible situation.

[MyndFyre]

Well, the thing is, if I could make money like that I'd do it.  I don't think it's hypothetical at all, because it's a perfectly possible situation.

I don't think that you could make money like that because its feasibility is so low that it's likely unenforceable.

The thing about the current case is that the provisions of the EULA and TOU are set forth as a protection of Blizzard's rights.  BnetD violates a protection mechanism set up by Blizzard in order to prevent illegal use: only one user can log onto Battle.net at one time per CD key, and the CD key has to be a legitimate CD key in Blizzard's database.

You are required to sign a contract in order to buy a new car. The contract says that if a serious material flaw in the car causes a fatal or serious accident, the car company cannot be held liable.

I do not know of any kind of car sale (new or otherwise) from a dealership here that would say something like that.  Warranties are one of the biggest factors in car sales (if advertising is any indication).  This is the kind of scenario that I was labelling "hypothetical," iago.

Most of the EULAs here that say "no warrant of merchantability, no fitness for a particular purpose, no liability accepted, ... etc" are pretty shakey legally speaking. If, for example, I bought some hospital life support software (or something equally critical) that contained those clauses, and a flaw in it caused someone to die, there's no way a waiver of liability would stand up in court.

Generally speaking, the same is likely true in the States.  I emphasize "likely", though, for a couple reasons....
1.) Most life-support software, if it was custom-made, is probably not licensed but rather purchased by a hospital.  The contract would likely include source code maintenance contracts and other, continued involvement by the development company.
2.) A hospital that disclaims rights like that is ignorant.  They want as little liability as possible, and giving up these rights is certainly not minimizing any liability on their part.

[MyndFyre]

As an update, if anybody didn't read the case decision, here is the part that I think is the real meat of the decision:

The parties in this case did have unequal bargaining power because Blizzard is the sole seller
of its software licenses; however, the defendants had the choice to select a different video game, to
agree to the terms and gain the software and access to Battle.net, or to disagree and return the
software for a full return of their money. See De John v. TV Corp. Int'l, 245 F.Supp.2d 913, 919
(C.D. Ill. 2003). Also, the defendants are not unwitting members of the general public as they claim.
They are computer programmers and administrators familiar with the language used in the contract,
and have the expertise to reverse engineer and understand source code. Next, there was no surprise
about the contract terms. The defendants had notice that the games were subject to the EULAs and
that access to Battle.net was subject to a TOU. The defendants also had access for up to thirty days
to read over the EULA and decide if they wanted to adhere to its terms or return the games.
Defendants had the same option in obtaining access to Battle.net. Therefore, the Court finds that the
licensing agreements were not procedurally unconscionable.
Even if the contract was procedurally unconscionable, it is not substantively unconscionable.
"Substantive unconscionability focuses on the actual terms of the agreement." Pardee, 123 Cal. Rptr.
2d at 295. It traditionally involves contract terms that are so one-sided as to "shock the conscience"
or that impose harsh or oppressive terms. Id. The terms of the EULA and TOU in this case do not
impose harsh or oppressive terms. Therefore, the Court hold that the EULAs and TOU in this case
are enforceable contracts.

[Adron]

As an update, if anybody didn't read the case decision, here is the part that I think is the real meat of the decision:

Looking at the real meat, I can see it saying how Blizzard could sue someone for breach of contract. I don't see how it could be used to kill bnetd.