Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc.
| Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc. | |
|---|---|
| Court | United States District Court for the Western District of Washington |
| Decided | May 20, 2008 |
| Citation | 555 F. Supp. 2d 1164 |
| Case history | |
| Subsequent actions | Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90906 (W.D. Wash., Sep. 30, 2009) (granting summary judgment for Vernor). |
| Holding | |
| Autodesk's motion to dismiss denied because Autodesk distributed copies of its software in transactions that, despite the inclusion of a restrictive license agreement, were best characterized as sales of the copies, giving rise to a right to redistribute those copies under the first-sale doctrine. (Reversed and Remanded on appeal by 9th Cir.) | |
| Court membership | |
| Judge sitting | Richard A. Jones |
| Keywords | |
| United States copyright law, First-sale doctrine, Software licensing | |
Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc. was a case in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington regarding the applicability of the first-sale doctrine to software sold under the terms of so-called "shrinkwrap licensing." The court held that when the transfer of software to the purchaser materially resembled a sale (non-recurring price, right to perpetual possession of copy) it was, in fact, a "sale with restrictions on use" giving rise to a right to resell the copy under the first-sale doctrine. As such, Autodesk could not pursue an action for copyright infringement against Vernor, who sought to resell used versions of its software on eBay. The decision was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which issued a decision on September 10, 2010, reversing the first-sale doctrine ruling and remanding for further proceedings on the misuse of copyright claim. The Ninth Circuit's decision asserted that its ruling was compelled by Ninth Circuit precedent, but observed that the policy considerations involved in the case might affect motion pictures and libraries as well as sales of used software.
The net effect of the Ninth Circuit's ruling is to limit the "You bought it, you own it" principle asserted by such organizations as the Electronic Frontier Foundation (or EFF).