This article analyzes the growing use of end-user license agreements in connection with the sale and licensing of patented and copyrighted products. It explores the limits and enforceability of such agreements through the analysis of relevant case law, including the decision in Lexmark v. Static Control Components. The article assesses the public policy implications of broadened enforceability of product licenses and makes recommendations for change.
Adobe Systems v. One Stop Micro (2000), 84 F.Supp.2d 1086 (N.D. California).
2.
Alcatel USA v. DGI Technologies (1999), 166 F.3d 772 (5th Circuit).
3.
Altera v. Clear Logic (2005), 424 F.3d 1079 (9th Circuit).
4.
Arizona Cartridge Remanufacturers Association v. Lexmark (2005), 421 F.3d 981 (9th Circuit).
5.
Arizona Retail Systems v. Software Link (1993), 831 F.Supp.759 (D. Arizona).
6.
Assessment Technologies of Wisconsin v. WIREdata (2003), 350 F.3d 640 (7th Circuit).
7.
B. Braun Medical v. Abbott Laboratories (1997), 124 F.3d 1419 (Federal Circuit).
8.
Bauer & Cie v. O'Donnell (1913), 229 U.S. 1.
9.
BergerKenneth (2002), “Role of Packaging in Society and the Environment,”University of Florida IFAS Extension, (accessed August 11, 2008), [available at http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/AE207].
10.
Bobbs-Merrill v. Strauss (1908), 210 U.S. 339.
11.
Bowers v. Baystate Technologies (2003), 320 F.3d 1317 (Federal Circuit).
12.
Brower v. Gateway 2000 (1998), 676 N.Y.S.2d 569.
13.
CovottaBrian, and SergeeffPamela (1998), “Intellectual Property: A Copyright: 1. Preemption: b) Contract Enforceability: ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg,”Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 13, 35–54.
Eastman Kodak Company v. Image Technical Services (1992), 504 U.S. 451.
19.
EinhornDavid (1985), “The Enforceability of Tear-Me-Open Software License Agreements,”Journal of the Patent & Trademark Office Society, 67(10), 509–570.
20.
Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service (1991), 499 U.S. 340.
General Talking Pictures v. Western Electric Company (1938), 304 U.S. 175, on rehearing, 305 U.S. 124.
23.
GrusdBrandon, L. (1997), “Contracting Beyond Copyright: ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg,”Harvard Journal of Law and Technology, 10(353), 353–67.
24.
G.S. Rasmussen & Associates v. Kalitta Flying Service (1992), 958 F.2d 896 (9th Circuit).
25.
HamiltonJ., and PettyRoss D. (2004), “Seeking a Single Policy for Contractual Unfairness to Consumers,”Journal of Consumer Affairs, 38(1), 146–66.
26.
Hewlett-Packard v. Repeat-O-Type Stencil (1997), 123 F.3d 1445 (Federal Circuit).
27.
Hill v. Gateway (1997), 105 F.3d 1147 (7th Circuit).
28.
i.Lan Systems v. Netscout Service Level (2002), 183 F.Supp.2d 328 (D. Mass.).
29.
Illinois Tool Works v. Independent Ink (2006), 547 U.S. 28.
30.
Jazz Photo Corporation v. International Trade Commission (2001), 264 F.3d 1094 (Federal Circuit).
31.
KarjalaDennis, S. (1997), “Copyright Owners’ Rights and Users’ Privileges on the Internet: Federal Preemption of Shrinkwrap Licenses,”Dayton Law Review, 22(Spring), 511–45.
32.
Keeler v. Standard Folding Bed (1895), 157 U.S. 659.
33.
Klocek v. Gateway (2000), 104 F.Supp.2d 1332 (D. Kansas).
34.
Krause v. Titleserv (2005), 402 F.3d 119 (2d Circuit).
35.
Lasercomb America v. Reynolds (1990), 911 F.2d 970 (Fourth Circuit).
36.
LemleyMark, A. (1995), “Intellectual Property and Shrink Wrap Licenses,”Southern California Law Review, 68, 1239–94.
37.
LitmanJessica (2001), Digital Copyright.Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.
38.
M.A. Mortenson v. Timberline Software (2000), 988 F.2d 305 (Washington).
39.
Mallinckrodt v. Medipart (1990), 15 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1113 (N.D. Illinois).
40.
Mallinckrodt v. Medipart (1992), 976 F.2d 700 (Federal Circuit).
41.
Matthew Bender & Company v. Jurisline.com (2000), 91 F.Supp.2d 677 (S.D. New York).
42.
MeurerMichael, J. (2003), “Vertical Restraints and Intellectual Property Law: Beyond Antitrust,”Minnesota Law Review, 87(June), 1871–1912.
43.
Microsoft v. DAK Industries (1995), 66 F.3d 1091 (9th Circuit).
44.
Monsanto v. David (2008), 516 F.3d 1009 (Federal Circuit).
45.
Monsanto v. Good (2003), 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27217 (D. New Jersey).
46.
Monsanto v. McFarling (2004), 363 F.3d 1336 (Federal Circuit).
47.
Monsanto v. Ralph (2004), 382 F.3d 1374 (Federal Circuit).
48.
Monsanto v. Scruggs (2004), 342 F.Supp.2d 568 (N.D. Mississippi).
49.
Morton Salt v. G.S. Suppiger (1942), 314 U.S. 488.
50.
Motion Picture Patents Company v. Universal Film Manufacturing Company (1917), 243 U.S. 502.
51.
NimmerMelville B., and NimmerDavid (2004), Nimmer on Copyright.New York: Mathew Bender & Company.
52.
Pioneer Hi-Bred International v. Ottawa Plant Food (2003), 283 F.Supp.2d 1018 (N.D. Iowa).
53.
Practice Management Information v. American Medical Association (1997), 121 F.3d 516 (9th Circuit), amended 133 F.3d 1140 (1998).
54.
ProCD v. Zeidenberg (1996a), 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Circuit).
55.
ProCD v. Zeidenberg (1996b), 908 F.Supp.640 (W.D. Wisconsin).
56.
RichtelMatt (2003), “Court Rejects Company's Efforts to Restrict Reviews of Its Software,”The New York Times, (January 18), C2.
57.
SCC v. Lexmark International (2007a), 487 F.Supp.830 (E.D. Kentucky).
58.
SCC v. Lexmark International (2007b), 487 F.Supp.2d 861 (E.D. Kentucky).
59.
SCC v. Lexmark International (2007c), Special Verdict Form, 04 CV 84 GFVT (E.D. Kentucky).
60.
ScotchmerSuzanne (2004), Innovation and Incentives.Boston: MIT Press.
61.
Sega Enterprises v. Accolade (1992), 977 F.2d 1510 (9th Circuit).
62.
Softman Products v. Adobe Systems (2001), 171 F.Supp.2d 1075 (C.D. California).
63.
Sotelo v. Direct Revenue (2005), 384 F.Supp.2d 1219 (N.D. Illinois).
64.
Stenzel v. Dell (2005), 870 A.2d 133 (Maine).
65.
Step Saver Data Systems v. Wyse Tech (1991), 939 F.2d 91 (3rd Circuit).
66.
Straus v. Victor Talking Machine Company (1917), 243 U.S. 490.
TolmanBrett, L. (1998), “ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg: The End Does Not Justify the Means in Federal Copyright Analysis,”Brigham Young University Law Review, (January 1), 303–35.
70.
Triad Systems v. Southeastern Express (1995), 64 F.3d 1330 (9th Circuit).
71.
UlmerRichard B.Jr., and DeeringerPaul A. (2005), “The Rise of the Restrictive Product License,”Competition: The Journal of the Antitrust and Unfair Competition Section of the State Bar of California, 14(2), 61–66.
72.
UMG Recordings v. Augusto (2008), 558 F.Supp.2d 1055 (C.D. California).
73.
United States v. Wise (1977), 550 F.2d 1180 (Ninth Circuit).
74.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (2007), “Adoption of Genetically Engineered Crops in the U.S.,” (accessed April 10, 2009), [available at http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/BiotechCrops/].
75.
U.S. Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission (2007), “Antitrust Enforcement and Intellectual Property Rights: Promoting Innovation and Competition,” (accessed April 10, 2009), [available at http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/hearings/ip/222655.pdf].
76.
WilsonBruce, B. (1970), “Patent and Know-How License Agreements: Field of Use, Territorial, Price and Quantity Restrictions,” remarks before the Fourth New England Antitrust Conference, (November 6).
77.
WinstonElizabeth, I. (2006), “Why Sell What You Can License? Contracting Around Statutory Protection of Intellectual Property,”George Mason Law Review, 14(1), 93–133.
