No - that paper is about software licenses. And Altium is like any other software company - those EULA's falls under copyright of the code. Therefor that paper is indeed relevant to software. And - this is the firm that did the first EULA shrinkwrap for Jobs and Wozniak back in the mid-70's. So again, relevant.
The Vernor case - with Judge Jone's initial ruling against Autodesk by way of First Sale is about software licensing - See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vernor_v._Autodesk,_Inc.For the mess the Ninth Circuit created citing Wise - see the end of this:
http://lawrecord.com/files/38_Rutgers_L_Rec_213.pdfwhere, it could then be construed that you could no longer sell used books, your CD collection, your VHS tapes, etc... That's a scary thing. That smells of monopolization. And there's laws against that. As stated in that Fenwick document.
It comes down to if I have intellectual property that relies on licensed technology to create and maintain, my IP would be worthless to my estate without the expressed consent of a licensor - who is now effectively forced me into a partnership.
Not cool man. As Fenwick - I have the right to look at my software licenses as an asset. Unlike CD's DVDs, vid games, VHS tapes, the license is not for a passive activity - it's actively being used to create my IP.
It's a tool. It should be deemed as much. That's why the Ninth Circuit pushed further clarification off on Congress:
"... The court concludes by deferring any alternative holding and policy considerations to Congress."
The thing that makes me wonder about how Autodesk (as well as Adobe) viewed the whole mess with the Vernor thing - even tho the squeaked by - is that they both soon stopped selling licenses and instead now "rent" software. It seems to me that initial ruling from Judge Jones (Quincy Jones' half-brother) scared them enough to change corporate direction.
This is what we now see with companies like Altium.
I mean look at it. About the early 2000's software companies basically "blew their wad" (see
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/blow_one%27s_wad first definition for those with perverted minds) and gave you pretty much 95-99% of what you needed to automate and computerize your workflow - to replace typewriters, drafting boards, and light tables/Bishop Graphics.
I mean - look at this from a "Sourworks" dealer comparing SW 95 to 2012 -
You can do pretty much everything in 1995 that's in 2012.
So now we have an industry that has lost it's value in the traditional sense. There's no need to really upgrade. And even with software companies that did go as far as creating patents - those have expired. So as in the Fenwick document,
" The motivation for such restriction is to prevent the licensor from
unduly expanding the market power conferred by the patent grant to effectively also control
unattended goods. Similarly, the doctrine of patent misuse is applied in certain situations
where a licensor imposes license fees that do not change as patents for the licensed
technology expire."
So now what?
They go for a subscription model. A recurrent revenue stream. One that - unlike us users that actually have to work and innovate for our business - they can just collect royalties.
And in fact, if you read that Fenwick doc, you can see that was the gist of doing licenses in the first place - tax considerations. Read the first part of that document.
This was explained to me a leading law firm in Pittsburgh back in 1998 - well before the Fenwick document when my co-founder got accused of buying his ex-stripper wife breast augmentation on the company credit card after the initially clueless investors finally figured out how significant something like IoT would be - see this and link to my patent:
https://www.ajawamnet.com/amnet/After that whole thing went down, I returned to Pittsburgh and the people I used to work for - the Sterns, that were one of the first movie theater chains (sold it Seagrams/Universal) introduced me to this law firm where the lawyer asked me why I don't just license the technology. As I was leaving the lead attorney asked me, "Do you know why they license software?" and explained basically what Fenwick wrote in that document.
So there you go. This will be interesting to see how it plays out. Look at it this way. Major tech firm M&A's could be significantly hampered by unconscionable enforcement of the software they licensed by those software companies. Look at Microsoft and they way their enterprise model works. It gives an unfair competitive advantage to larger companies. A clear violation of anti-trust laws.
And those EULA's - even a judge was quoted as saying that might be considered a contract signed under duress.
No man... It's you bought it you own it. I didn't "rent" it, nor ask for a forced partnership.
I saw this coming... glad I got a standalone .ALF and offline installers.