Step-Saver Data Systems, Inc. v. Wyse Technology

Last updated

Step-Saver Data Systems, Inc. v. Wyse Technology
Seal of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.svg
Court United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Full case nameStep-Saver Data Systems, Inc. v. Wyse Technology and The Software Link, Inc.
DecidedJuly 29, 1991
Citation(s)939 F.2d 91; 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 16526; 15 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (Callaghan) 1
Case history
Prior action(s)1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11320 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 25, 1989); affirmed in part, reversed in part, 912 F.2d 643 (3rd Cir. 1990); plaintiff's motion for a new trial denied, 752 F. Supp. 181 (E.D. Pa. 1990); dismissed, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17381 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 21, 1990)
Subsequent action(s)none
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Dolores K. Sloviter (Chief), Robert E. Cowen, John M. Wisdom (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, sitting by designation)
Case opinions
A written license and warranty disclaimer on the box-top of a software package did not become part of a binding contract when the software was purchased. Judgment of U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

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.

Contents

Facts

During the relevant period, Step-Saver Data Systems, Inc. was a value-added reseller marketing 'single-user' computer systems (known at the time as micro-computers). These 'single-user' computer systems consolidated software from multiple vendors into a single package tailored to the needs of various end-users.

In an effort to expand their market opportunities, Step-Saver sought to move to multi-user computer systems. To facilitate this transition, Step-Saver purchased a multi-user operating system from The Software Link (TSL) known as "Multi-Link Advanced". They also purchased computer terminals from Wyse Technology that claimed to be compatible with the Multi-Link Advanced operating system. Combining these two components with computers provided by IBM, Step Saver began selling their new multi-user solution. However, soon after Step-Saver began selling this product, complaints were received by customers claiming that the system was not functioning properly. Step-Saver notified both TSL and Wyse of the complaints, but after a large amount of effort the customers' problems remained largely unresolved.

As a result, 12 of Step-Saver's customers filed lawsuits against them. As producers of key components of Step-Saver's overall product, Step-Saver contended that TSL and Wyse were liable in these suits, arguing that the same implied warranties Step-Saver made to its consumers were also made to Step-Saver by TSL and Wyse. [1] However, TSL argued that the box-top license on the software delivered to Step-Saver was the only valid agreement made between the two companies. Step-Saver challenged this argument, indicating that the box-top license should be non-binding since Step-Saver never explicitly agreed to its terms.

Court opinions

Step-Saver initiated this case in an effort to hold Wyse and TSL liable in their customer lawsuits. Step-Saver argued, that any liability that it had to its customers should be shared by both Wyse and TSL since they were the original providers of the allegedly defective software and hardware. Step-Saver also argued that an implied contract existed between Step-Saver and these merchants at the time of purchase. They claimed that such an implied contract required the merchants to become co-defendants in the customer lawsuits.

TSL subsequently argued that the implied contract was not enforceable, but rather, that the Limited Use License Agreement (LULA) written on the software package was. Step-Saver sought a declaratory judgement on the matter [1] and complained that it incurred more than $75,000 in direct damages as a result of the customer lawsuits resulting from the incompatibilities experienced between the terminals bought from Wyse and the software purchased from TSL. Five court cases and three years later the case was finally decided on the July 29th, 1991. All district cases were heard by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and all appeals were heard in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit . A history and summary of each case is provided in the subsequent sections.

District case: Motion for Declaratory Judgment (1989)

The plaintiff, Step-Saver, sought contribution and compensation from the defendants, seeking declaratory judgment. In turn, the defendants, Wyse and TSL, moved for summary judgment. [2]

The defendants' motion for summary judgment was subsequently granted, and Step-Saver's motion for a declaratory judgment was denied on the grounds of misuse of the Declaratory Judgment Act. Specifically it failed because of U.S.C. 2201 , and a lack of evidence demonstrating that the defendant was liable. The court held that Step-Saver's motion for a declaratory judgment was 'unripe', on the grounds that cases involving customer suits had not yet been decided. The errors in the Step-Saver system that initiated the suits had not been identified and thus could not be designated to be the fault of the hardware or software, in which case TSL and Wyse could be liable. [2]

First appeal to Third Circuit (1990)

Step-Saver called for a review of the district case, specifically a review of the court's decision to dismiss Step-Saver's complaint for a declaratory judgment. In order to reestablish that Step-Saver's motion could not be affirmed, the court cited Aetna Life Co. v. Haworth, [3] which supported the dismissal of motions for declaratory judgment if the motioning party provided insufficient concrete evidence. In addition, the court indicated that "making a law without finding the necessary facts constitutes advisory opinion writing, and that is constitutionally forbidden" [4]

In this appeal, the court also considered a direct damages claim brought forth by Step-Saver. The claim was defined as independent of declaratory judgment and it was found that the consequential damages could be recovered U.C.C. 2-714(2) . [4]

The court affirmed in part and reversed in part. The declaratory judgment motion made by Step-Saver was still considered to be unripe. However, the portion of the claim associated with direct damages was reversed, now in favor of Step-saver. The case was then remanded for further proceedings. [4]

District case: Motion for Retrial (1990)

Dissatisfied with the verdict of previous proceedings, the plaintiff motioned for a retrial. The defendants had been granted summary judgment on many of the issues presented by Step-Saver. In consideration of a retrial, the court examined the previous court's holdings. The district court found the previous court's holding to be true. Under contract law, ill-defined contracts are treated under U.C.C. 2-207 , the previous court decision found that this would render the Step-Saver/TSL implied license as moot and instead the box-top license would be upheld. The court agreed that in the previous proceedings "LULA effectively disclaimed alleged express warranties". [1]

The court found that Step-Saver's allegations of error were unfounded and denied the motion for a new trial. [5]

District case: dismissal of vendor suit (1990)

Wyse technology and TSL sought to dismiss plaintiff's initial suit seeking compensation or indemnification for damages done to Step-Saver's business due to customer lawsuits. [5]

The court granted this motion on the basis that the first district case associated with Step Saver v. Wyse, was no longer relevant in light of Step-Saver's motion for a second appeal to the 3rd Circuit. [5]

Second appeal to Third Circuit (1991)

The court reversed holdings of the district court on the grounds that the box-top license is a non-enforceable contract, since Step-Saver did not explicitly agree to its terms. [5] In addition the box-top license itself violated the original contract terms between Step and TSL which had given Step-Saver the right to freely distribute copies of TSL Multi-Link Advanced. The court remanded for further consideration of the Step-Saver initial contract consisting of implied warranty. The court affirmed in all other respects. [5]

Importance of verdict

The enforceability of shrink wrap contracts has been an issue of controversy as demonstrated in a few notable cases, Vernor v. Autodesk and ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg both of which cited the Step-Saver case.

The questions raised about constitutional and statutory preemptions from this case however has been re-argued in other cases such as Softman v. Adobe and Novell, Inc. v. CPU Distrib., Inc. in which the preempted federal statutes have been enforced over the EULA terms, thus invalidating that part of the EULA.

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.

A declaratory judgment, also called a declaration, is the legal determination of a court that resolves legal uncertainty for the litigants. It is a form of legally binding preventive by which a party involved in an actual or possible legal matter can ask a court to conclusively rule on and affirm the rights, duties, or obligations of one or more parties in a civil dispute. The declaratory judgment is generally considered a statutory remedy and not an equitable remedy in the United States, and is thus not subject to equitable requirements, though there are analogies that can be found in the remedies granted by courts of equity. A declaratory judgment does not by itself order any action by a party, or imply damages or an injunction, although it may be accompanied by one or more other remedies.

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

Trespass to chattels is a tort whereby the infringing party has intentionally interfered with another person's lawful possession of a chattel. The interference can be any physical contact with the chattel in a quantifiable way, or any dispossession of the chattel. As opposed to the greater wrong of conversion, trespass to chattels is argued to be actionable per se.

SoftMan Products Co. v. Adobe Systems Inc. was a lawsuit heard in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in 2001 by Judge Dean D. Pregerson.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">PC-MOS/386</span>

PC-MOS/386 is a multi-user, multitasking computer operating system produced by The Software Link (TSL), announced at COMDEX in November 1986 for February 1987 release. PC-MOS/386, a successor to PC-MOS, can run many MS-DOS programs on the host machine or a terminal connected to it. Unlike MS-DOS, PC-MOS/386 is optimized for the Intel 80386 processor; however early versions will run on any x86 computer. PC-MOS/386 used to be proprietary, but it was released as open-source software in 2017.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">The Software Link</span>

The Software Link, Inc. (TSL) was a company in Norcross, Georgia that developed software for personal computers from 1986 to 1994. The company was co-founded by Rod Roark and Gary Robertson.

<i>ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg</i>

ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447, was a court ruling at the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. 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.

<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.

<i>Jacobsen v. Katzer</i>

Jacobsen v. Katzer was a lawsuit between Robert Jacobsen (plaintiff) and Matthew Katzer (defendant), filed March 13, 2006 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The case addressed claims on copyright, patent invalidity, cybersquatting, and Digital Millennium Copyright Act issues arising from Jacobsen under an open source license developing control software for model trains.

Field v. Google, Inc., 412 F.Supp. 2d 1106 is a case where Google Inc. successfully defended a lawsuit for copyright infringement. Field argued that Google infringed his exclusive right to reproduce his copyrighted works when it "cached" his website and made a copy of it available on its search engine. Google raised multiple defenses: fair use, implied license, estoppel, and Digital Millennium Copyright Act safe harbor protection. The court granted Google's motion for summary judgment and denied Field's motion for summary judgment.

<i>Bragg v. Linden Research, Inc.</i> 2007 United States civil action

Bragg v. Linden Research, Inc., 487 F. Supp. 2d 593, was a ruling at the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The case resulted in an important early ruling on the enforceability of an online End User License Agreement (EULA) under American contract law, though it did not ultimately gain influence as a precedent. The ruling also clarified the matter of personal jurisdiction for a dispute involving a user of a website that originates in a different region.

Data General Corp. v. Digital Computer Controls, Inc. was a 1971 case in which the Delaware Court of Chancery determined that widespread, confidential disclosure of trade secrets does not necessarily compromise their secrecy. Data General Corporation distributed design documentation with its Nova 1200 minicomputer, notifying owners of the confidentiality of these design drawings through contractual agreements and explicit text on the drawings. After acquiring drawings with a Nova 1200 purchase, Digital Computer Controls designed its own nearly identical minicomputer. Digital Computer Controls maintained that its use of the documentation was proper because Data General Corporation inadequately maintained the secrecy of the design drawings by distributing them to many customers. The court found that Data General Corporation had sufficiently protected the secrecy of the drawings and that Digital Computer Controls was thus in violation of trade secret law for improperly using confidential information.

<i>Microsoft Corp. v. Harmony Computers & Electronics, Inc.</i> Eastern New York Court Case

Microsoft Corp. v. Harmony Comps. & Elecs., Inc., 846 F. Supp. 208, was an Eastern New York District Court decision regarding copyright infringement and breach of license agreement. Microsoft Corp. filed the lawsuit against Harmony Comps. & Elecs., Inc. and its president, Stanley Furst, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and treble damages. The defendants did not contest the plaintiff's claim that Harmony sold Microsoft's products without any licenses or authorization, or that they sold Microsoft's products stand-alone, which violated Microsoft's license agreement. Instead, the defendants argued that their action was protected by the first-sale doctrine 17 U.S.C §109(a) (1977). After reviewing the facts, the court found that the defendants' action constituted copyright infringement, and that the first-sale doctrine did not apply since the defendants failed to prove that the Microsoft products they sold were lawfully acquired. The court also ruled that the defendants breached Microsoft's software license agreement by selling the products stand-alone.

<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>Facebook, Inc. v. Power Ventures, Inc.</i> Lawsuit brought by Facebook in the United States

Facebook, Inc. v. Power Ventures, Inc. is a lawsuit brought by Facebook in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging that Power Ventures Inc., a third-party platform, collected user information from Facebook and displayed it on their own website. Facebook claimed violations of the CAN-SPAM Act, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act ("CFAA"), and the California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act. According to Facebook, Power Ventures Inc. made copies of Facebook's website during the process of extracting user information. Facebook argued that this process causes both direct and indirect copyright infringement. In addition, Facebook alleged this process constitutes a violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA"). Finally, Facebook also asserted claims of both state and federal trademark infringement, as well as a claim under California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL").

<i>Arista Records LLC v. Lime Group LLC</i> 2010 United States district court case

Arista Records LLC v. Lime Group LLC, 715 F. Supp. 2d 481, is a United States district court case in which the Southern District of New York held that Lime Group LLC, the defendant, induced copyright infringement with its peer-to-peer file sharing software, LimeWire. The court issued a permanent injunction to shut it down. The lawsuit is a part of a larger campaign against piracy by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA).

<i>Oracle Corp. v. SAP AG</i> US copyright infringement lawsuit (decided 2011)

Oracle Corp v. SAP AG, No. 4:07-cv-01658, was a United States District Court for the Northern District of California case in which Oracle sued SAP, alleging that SAP had engaged in copyright infringement by downloading thousands of copyrighted documents and programs from Oracle's Customer Connection website. SAP admitted that its subsidiary TomorrowNow had infringed Oracle's copyrights and a jury awarded Oracle record-high damages in the amount of $1.3 billion. Judge Phyllis Hamilton later vacated the jury's verdict, which was based on the calculation of a hypothetical license, and granted SAP's motion for a new trial dependent on Oracle rejecting a remittitur of $272 million. In November 2014, an appeals court ruled for $356.7 million in damages, a decision which was accepted by both parties.

Finjan, Inc. v. Secure Computing Corp., 626 F.3d 1197 (2010), was a patent infringement case by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit involving "proactive scanning" technology for computer security. The Federal Circuit made a mixed decision after hearing the appeals from both sides. In terms of infringement, the Federal Circuit affirmed Secure Computing's infringement on Finjan's system and storage medium patent claims but reversed the infringement on Finjan's method claim. In terms of damage award, the Federal Circuit not only affirmed the previous $9.18 million award by the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, but also remanded for the district court to assess the extra damages between the post-judgement and pre-injunction period.

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.

References

  1. 1 2 3 Step-Saver v. Wyse, 752F. Supp.181 (United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania1990).
  2. 1 2 Step-Saver Data Systems, Inc. v. Wyse Technology, 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11320.{{cite book}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  3. ↑ Aetna Life Co.v Haworth, 30057 (S. Ct.1939).
  4. 1 2 3 Step-Saver Data Systems, Inc. v. Wyse Technology, 912F.2d643 (3rd Cir.1990).
  5. 1 2 3 4 5 Step-Saver Data Systems, Inc. v. Wyse Technology, 939F.2d91 (3rd Cir.1991).
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.