Lots of important computer cases heard today.

Vernor v Autodesk
Vernor made money by purchasing used copies (disk, box, manual, etc) of AutoCAD from businesses shutting down. He then sold them on eBay. Autodesk said he can't sell those because the original person didn't own them and they were licensed. Since there's a EULA in the box that says you don't own it, you don't. It would be like renting a DVD from Blockbuster and selling it rather than giving it back. It's not yours, you can't do that.

Vernor said the people paid a single sum of money for the box and never had to return it, unlike a rental. So despite what piece of paper is in the box, those people own their copies and thus can sell them.

Judge agreed and said the nature of the transaction is more important than the piece of paper in the box. Looks like a sale, smells like a sale, it's a sale. Vernor won handily. Autodesk appealed.

UMG v Augusto
UMG (Universal Music Group) sends a bunch of promo CD's to people with a sticker that says "Not For Sale". Augusto, naturally, sells them. UMG sues for copyright infringement saying he can't sell those because he doesn't own them - he is only licensing them, according to the sticker on the disc.

Augusto says they sent me the CD's and I never agreed to give them back, they are mine.

Judge agreed and said ownership of the physical CD was transferred. Augusto won handily. UMG appealed.

Also heard was MDY vs. Blizzard Entertainment.
Which covers torterious interference, copyright violations, and a slew of other torts.

Pay close attention to this, you could soon owe money for naming your characters a bad name.

(not a joke, it would be copyright infringement)

You can listen to these audio files here.
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/

I have been following the Vernor vs. Autodesk one closly, however the MDY case is also a fun one to watch.

While my opinions on Glider don't need to be argued here, he's already 6.5 million behind and it will be interesting to see how the case finishes off.

the way the entertainment business is trying to run is that they claim copyright infrindgement on anything to put teeth into contracts that don't otherwise hold much of a finger at you otherwise. contract infrindgement is relatively cheap to pay vs copyright infrindgement. at the end of the day, use of copyright infrindgment needs to be limited to what it was intended imo, keeping people from stealing software, not enforcing tos agreements.

yes that is right, breach of your tos agreement makes you liable for copyright infrindgment according to current case law except for the autodesk software case

In copyright terms, and end user rights when it comes to software, these are some pretty impacting cases to watch.