ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg

Last updated

ProCD v. Zeidenberg
Seal of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.svg
Court United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Full case nameProCD, Inc. av. Matthew Zeidenberg and Silken Mountain Web Services, Inc.
DecidedJune 20, 1996
Citation(s) 86 F.3d 1447; 65 USLW 2014; 1996 Copr. L. Dec. (CCH) ¶ 27,529; 39 U.S.P.Q.2d 1161; 29 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 1109
Case history
Prior history908 F. Supp. 640 (W.D. Wis. 1996)
Holding
A shrink wrap license for a software product is an enforceable contract.
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting John Louis Coffey, Joel Martin Flaum, Frank H. Easterbrook
Case opinions
MajorityEasterbrook
Laws applied
Uniform Commercial Code §§ 2-204, 2-206, 2-606

ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir., 1996), was a court ruling at the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. [1] The case is a significant precedent on the matter of the applicability of American contract law to new types of shrinkwrap licenses that arose with home computing and the Internet in the 1990s, and whether such licenses are enforceable contracts.

Contents

Background

In the mid-1990s, Matthew Zeidenberg purchased a telephone directory database, SelectPhone, on a CD-ROM produced and sold by the company ProCD. That company had compiled information from over 3,000 local telephone directories, at a cost of more than $10 million, and sold the results to marketers and other interested persons. To recoup its costs, ProCD discriminated based on price by charging commercial users a higher price than it did to everyday, non-commercial users. [1]

Zeidenberg started his own business called Silken Mountain Web Service in which he intended to sell categorized lists of phone numbers to marketers, and planned to copy phone numbers from the database that had been compiled by ProCD and sold via the SelectPhone package. Zeidenberg purchased a non-commercial copy of SelectPhone from a retail store. After opening the packaging and installing the software on his personal computer, Zeidenberg created a website and offered the information originally on the CD-ROM to his own customers for a fee that was less than what ProCD charged its commercial customers. [1]

The CD-ROM package purchased by Zeidenberg included an external notice (within the shrink wrap that covered the box) that a license was enclosed within the package. Upon installing the software, he was presented with a notice on his computer screen describing the license agreement, which in turn required clicking a checkbox to show consent. This in turn is known as a clickwrap license. Another version of the license was available as a file on the CD-ROM. [1]

ProCD filed suit against Zeidenberg for contract law violations, because the license included in the SelectPhone package forbade copying of the contents; ProCD argued that the shrinkwrap license was an enforceable contract. The case was first heard at the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. [2]

District court proceedings

ProCD argued at the district court that Zeidenberg violated its license by copying and reselling the contents of its SelectPhone CD-ROM. Zeidenberg argued that the shrinkwrap license was not a valid contract that could be enforced, because it merely hinted at hidden terms that could not be evaluated by the customer until after purchase. Zeidenberg also claimed that by trying to prohibit its users from copying phone numbers from its database, ProCD was violating copyright law because phone numbers are facts, and facts cannot be copyrighted. [2]

The district court ruled that the buyer of a software package is not required to observe a shrinkwrap license because in this case, the message on the outside of the CD-ROM box (under the shrink wrap) only served as a notice that there was a contractual agreement inside, and did not constitute an enforceable contract in itself. Thus, the shrinkwrap license was not a contract and Zeidenberg had not committed a violation. [2]

ProCD appealed this ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

Circuit court ruling

The Seventh Circuit overturned the lower court decision and ruled that a shrinkwrap license is in fact an enforceable contract. The circuit court held that while the message on the outside of the CD-ROM package was merely a notification of the full contract to be found inside, this did not force a purchase as Zeidenberg claimed. [1] Instead, ProCD invited buyers to return the package to the retailer if they could not accept the terms of the agreement: "If you do not agree to the terms of this License, promptly return all copies of the software, listings that may have been exported, the discs and the User Guide to the place where you obtained it." The circuit court also held that Zeidenberg then had ample opportunity to review the license after opening the package, and indicated his acceptance of the agreement by clicking the relevant checkbox before he could begin using the SelectPhone software. [2]

On Zeidenberg's copyright argument, the circuit court noted the 1991 Supreme Court precedent Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service , in which it was found that the information within a telephone directory (individual phone numbers) were facts that could not be copyrighted. [3] For Zeidenberg's argument, the circuit court assumed that a database collecting the contents of one or more telephone directories was equally a collection of facts that could not be copyrighted. Thus, Zeidenberg's copyright argument was valid. [1] However, this did not lead to a victory for Zeidenberg, because the circuit court held that copyright law does not preempt contract law. Since ProCD had made the investments in its business and its specific SelectPhone product, it could require customers to agree to its terms on how to use the product, including a prohibition on copying the information therein regardless of copyright protections. [1]

Finally, the circuit court held that a shrinkwrap license, when used for a product that can be returned if the buyer disagrees with the larger agreement inside the package, constitutes a valid and enforceable contract. The court relied primarily on the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) sections 2-204 (describing a valid contract) and 2-606 (describing the offering and acceptance of a contract). Zeidenberg had been offered the opportunity to read the license agreement inside the package and agree by continuing to use the software (which he had done), or to refuse by returning the package to the retailer. In particular, the circuit court noted that "the opportunity to return goods can be important" under the Uniform Commercial Code. [1]

Impact

The Seventh Circuit's ruling in ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg was praised by the corporate community for confirming the applicability and enforceability of shrinkwrap licenses, which had been a rising trend at the time but without settled law. [4] [5] [6] However, some pro-consumer commentators criticized the ruling's acceptance of a business model in which a consumer was required to buy a product and open it first, and then take additional steps to return the product to the retailer and seek a refund (which would be questionable with an opened and possibly damaged package) if they disagreed with the terms of the contract. [7] [8] The ruling also received some criticism, in agreement with Zeidenberg's argument, that ProCD intended to use contract law to indirectly enforce control over un-copyrightable facts such as phone numbers. [9] [10]

See also

Related Research Articles

An end-user license agreement or EULA is a legal contract between a software supplier and a customer or end-user, generally made available to the customer via a retailer acting as an intermediary. A EULA specifies in detail the rights and restrictions which apply to the use of the software.

bnetd is a communication app that enables users of the online game StarCraft released on March 31, 1998 to connect and chat together. Bnetd was released on April 28, 1998 under the name StarHack and provided near-complete emulation of the original online multiplayer gaming service network. This was accomplished through reverse engineering of the corporate Blizzard Entertainment's Battle.net.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Telephone directory</span> Book that lists phone numbers of people and businesses

A telephone directory, commonly called a telephone book, telephone address book, phonebook, or the white and yellow pages, is a listing of telephone subscribers in a geographical area or subscribers to services provided by the organization that publishes the directory. Its purpose is to allow the telephone number of a subscriber identified by name and address to be found.

<i>Step-Saver Data Systems, Inc. v. Wyse Technology</i>

Step-Saver Data Systems, Inc. v. Wyse Technology was a case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primarily concerned with the enforceability of box-top licenses and end user license agreements (EULA) and their place in U.S. contract law. During the relevant period, Step-Saver Data Systems was a value-added reseller, combining hardware and software from different vendors to offer a fully functioning computer system to various end users. Step-Saver's products included software produced by Software Link, Inc (TSL), computer terminals produced by Wyse Technology, and main computers produced by IBM. The fundamental question raised in this case was whether the shrinkwrap licenses accompanying TSL's software were legally binding, given that different terms were negotiated over the phone with Step-Saver prior to receiving physical copies of the software. The case was first heard in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, where the court ruled that the shrinkwrap licenses were legally binding. However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit subsequently reversed this decision, ruling that the shrinkwrap licenses were not legally binding.

The first-sale doctrine is an American legal concept that limits the rights of an intellectual property owner to control resale of products embodying its intellectual property. The doctrine enables the distribution chain of copyrighted products, library lending, giving, video rentals and secondary markets for copyrighted works. In trademark law, this same doctrine enables reselling of trademarked products after the trademark holder puts the products on the market. In the case of patented products, the doctrine allows resale of patented products without any control from the patent holder. The first sale doctrine does not apply to patented processes, which are instead governed by the patent exhaustion doctrine.

Copyright misuse is an equitable defence to copyright infringement in the United States based upon the doctrine of unclean hands. The misuse doctrine provides that the copyright holder engaged in abusive or improper conduct in exploiting or enforcing the copyright will be precluded from enforcing his rights against the infringer. Copyright misuse is often comparable to and draws from the older and more established doctrine of patent misuse, which bars a patentee from obtaining relief for infringement when he extends his patent rights beyond the limited monopoly conferred by the law.

A software license is a legal instrument governing the use or redistribution of software. Under United States copyright law, all software is copyright protected, in both source code and object code forms, unless that software was developed by the United States Government, in which case it cannot be copyrighted. Authors of copyrighted software can donate their software to the public domain, in which case it is also not covered by copyright and, as a result, cannot be licensed.

Shrinkwrap contracts or shrinkwrap licenses are boilerplate contracts packaged with products; use of the product is deemed acceptance of the contract.

A clickwrap or clickthrough agreement is a prompt that offers individuals the opportunity to accept or decline a digitally-mediated policy. Privacy policies, terms of service and other user policies, as well as copyright policies commonly employ the clickwrap prompt. Clickwraps are common in signup processes for social media services like Facebook, Twitter or Tumblr, connections to wireless networks operated in corporate spaces, as part of the installation processes of many software packages, and in other circumstances where agreement is sought using digital media. The name "clickwrap" is derived from the use of "shrink wrap contracts" commonly used in boxed software purchases, which "contain a notice that by tearing open the shrinkwrap, the user assents to the software terms enclosed within".

MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913 (2005), is a United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court ruled unanimously that the defendants, peer-to-peer file sharing companies Grokster and Streamcast, could be held liable for inducing copyright infringement by users of their file sharing software. The plaintiffs were a consortium of 28 entertainment companies, led by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer studios.

<i>Specht v. Netscape Communications Corp.</i> American legal case

Specht v. Netscape, 306 F.3d 17, is a ruling at the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit regarding the enforceability of clickwrap licenses under contract law. The court held that merely clicking on a download button does not show consent with license terms, if those terms were not conspicuous and if it was not explicit to the consumer that clicking meant agreeing to the license.

Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991), was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States establishing that information alone without a minimum of original creativity cannot be protected by copyright. In the case appealed, Feist had copied information from Rural's telephone listings to include in its own, after Rural had refused to license the information. Rural sued for copyright infringement. The Court ruled that information contained in Rural's phone directory was not copyrightable and that therefore no infringement existed.

Proprietary software is software that, according to the free and open-source software community, grants its creator, publisher, or other rightsholder or rightsholder partner a legal monopoly by modern copyright and intellectual property law to exclude the recipient from freely sharing the software or modifying it, and—in some cases, as is the case with some patent-encumbered and EULA-bound software—from making use of the software on their own, thereby restricting their freedoms.

Browsewrap is a term used in Internet law to refer to a contract or license agreement covering access to or use of materials on a web site or downloadable product. In a browse-wrap agreement, the terms and conditions of use for a website or other downloadable product are posted on the website, typically as a hyperlink at the bottom of the screen. Unlike a clickwrap agreement, where the user must manifest assent to the terms and conditions by clicking on an "I agree" box, a browse-wrap agreement does not require this type of express manifestation of assent. Rather, a web-site user purportedly gives their consent simply by using the product — such as by entering the website or downloading software.

<i>MDY Industries, LLC v. Blizzard Entertainment, Inc.</i> Court case in the United States

MDY Industries, LLC v. Blizzard Entertainment, Inc and Vivendi Games, Inc., 629 F.3d 928, is a case decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. At the district court level, MDY had been found liable under theories of copyright and tort law for selling software that contributed to the breach of Blizzard's End User License Agreement (EULA) and Terms of Use (ToU) governing the World of Warcraft video game software.
The court's ruling was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which reversed the district court in part, upheld in part, and remanded for further proceedings. The Court of Appeals ruled that for a software licensee's violation of a contract to constitute copyright infringement, there must be a nexus between the license condition and the licensor’s exclusive rights of copyright. However, the court also ruled, contrary to Chamberlain v. Skylink, that a finding of circumvention under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act does not require a nexus between circumvention and actual copyright infringement.

<i>Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc.</i> United States district court case

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 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.

<i>Bowers v. Baystate Technologies, Inc.</i>

Bowers v. Baystate Technologies, 320 F.3d 1317, was a U.S. Court of Appeals Federal Circuit case involving Harold L. Bowers and Baystate Technologies over patent infringement, copyright infringement, and breach of contract. In the case, the court found that Baystate had breached their contract by reverse engineering Bower's program, something expressly prohibited by a shrink wrap license that Baystate entered into upon purchasing a copy of Bower's software. This case is notable for establishing that license agreements can preempt fair use rights as well as expand the rights of copyright holders beyond those codified in US federal law.

The Louisiana Software License Enforcement Act refers to the Software License Enforcement Act (SLEA) adopted by the state of Louisiana. The bill was voted into law in September 1984 under Title 51 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes by the Louisiana State Legislature. Sponsored and mostly written by Vault Corporation, the SLEA defines the permissible terms and conditions of a software license agreement and the requirements for enforceability. The reverse engineering, decompiling or disassembling provision of the Louisiana SLEA was invalidated by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruling in Vault Corp. v. Quaid Software, Ltd., 847 F.2d 255 .

Open source license litigation involves lawsuits surrounding open-source licensed software. Many of the legal rights of open source software licensors enforceable against users violating licensing agreements are untested by the U.S. legal system. Free and open source software (FOSS) is distributed under a variety of free-software licenses, which are unique among other software licenses. Legal action against open source licenses involves questions about their validity and enforceability.

<i>Feldman v. Google, Inc.</i> 2007 United States civil action

Feldman v. Google, Inc., 513 F.Supp.2d 229, was a ruling at the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The case has become a defining precedent on the enforceability of clickwrap agreements for Internet services.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86F.3d1447 (7th Cir.1996).
  2. 1 2 3 4 ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 908F. Supp.640 (W.D. Wis.1996).
  3. ↑ Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 US 340 (1991).
  4. ↑ Grusd, Brandon L. (1997). "Contracting Beyond Copyright: ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg". Harvard Journal of Law & Technology. 10 (2): 353–368 – via HeinOnline.
  5. ↑ Cross, John T (1997). "Revisiting the Shrinkwrap License: ProCD Inc. v. Zeidenberg". Information & Communications Technology Law. 6 (1): 71–76 – via HeinOnline.
  6. ↑ Wang, Joseph C. (1997). "ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg and Article 2B: Finally, the Validation of Shrinkwrap Licenses". John Marshall Journal of Computer and Information Law. 16 (2): 439–474 – via HeinOnline.
  7. ↑ Posner, Eric A (2010). "ProCD v Zeidenberg and Cognitive Overload in Contractual Bargaining". University of Chicago Law Review. 77: 1181–1194 – via HeinOnline.
  8. ↑ Pitet, Christopher L. (1997). "The Problem with Money Now, Terms Later: ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg and the Enforceability of Shrinkwrap Software Licenses". Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review. 31 (1): 325–352 – via HeinOnline.
  9. ↑ Tolman, Brett L. (1998). "ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg: The End Does Not Justify the Means in Federal Copyright Analysis". Brigham Young University Law Review. 1998 (1): 303–336 – via HeinOnline.
  10. ↑ Mercer, Kell Corrigan (1997). "Consumer Shrink-Wrap Licenses and Public Domain Materials; Copyright Preemption and Uniform Commercial Code Validity in ProCD v. Zeidenberg". Creighton Law Review. 30 (4): 1287–1348 – via HeinOnline.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.