Online platform’s EULA barred software developer from owning copyright in code(blog.internetcases.com)
blog.internetcases.com
Online platform’s EULA barred software developer from owning copyright in code
http://blog.internetcases.com/2017/10/26/online-platforms-eula-barred-software-developer-from-claiming-copyright-ownership/
24 comments
With that adjective it sounds as though you didn't think much respect was due to begin with!
In any event, the summary is very clear that this was a motion to dismiss, not a trial judgment. So your critique is likely to mislead.
And yes, the court left open the option for plaintiff to replead. But I would suggest that does not do much to mitigate the extent to which the court's reasoning here as to how the agreement could limit a claim of copyright is questionable.
But thanks for your comments. I just did not feel that your word choice reflected well on our profession. Let's try to be friends anyway!
In any event, the summary is very clear that this was a motion to dismiss, not a trial judgment. So your critique is likely to mislead.
And yes, the court left open the option for plaintiff to replead. But I would suggest that does not do much to mitigate the extent to which the court's reasoning here as to how the agreement could limit a claim of copyright is questionable.
But thanks for your comments. I just did not feel that your word choice reflected well on our profession. Let's try to be friends anyway!
I looked up the case [1]. The copyright claims, as well as one of the claims for breach of contract, were dismissed without prejudice, which (as far as I understand) means he failed to allege enough facts to support his claim, but can come back and try again. Of the claims that were dismissed with prejudice, one of them were outside of the statute of limitations, one of them were a claim of breach of contract because his account was terminated (dismissed because the contract explicitly allowed TD to do this), one was a claim of "trespass to real property", which I believe relates to a claim that TD had physically destroyed his hard drive, and one was dismissed because (from what I can tell) it wouldn't apply to the sort of relation the two had.
I'm not a lawyer and so can't say conclusively, but it seems to me the court isn't saying "yeah they're right you don't have copyright here" as much as they're (for the most part) saying "you didn't include enough information in the suit, come back and try again".
[1] https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/alaska...
I'm not a lawyer and so can't say conclusively, but it seems to me the court isn't saying "yeah they're right you don't have copyright here" as much as they're (for the most part) saying "you didn't include enough information in the suit, come back and try again".
[1] https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/alaska...
Am I understanding it right? Ameritrade provides an API, developers using it don't own the copyright in the code they write because it's considered derivative work, Ameritrade can do anything it wants with that code (but how did they get it?).
I wonder if any of us could do the same if we had the code. Anyway, why should one want to use that API now?
Java API was deemed to be not copyrightable if I'm not wrong. That is not an online API but does it matter and is it a precedent? Apparently not, maybe because of the EULA. Imagine if Java came with a license saying that developers don't own their Java code. Probably we would have forgotten Java by the end of the 90s.
I wonder if any of us could do the same if we had the code. Anyway, why should one want to use that API now?
Java API was deemed to be not copyrightable if I'm not wrong. That is not an online API but does it matter and is it a precedent? Apparently not, maybe because of the EULA. Imagine if Java came with a license saying that developers don't own their Java code. Probably we would have forgotten Java by the end of the 90s.
That doesn't make sense. As soon as the developer wrote the code (I.e. fixed it in tangible form) he had copyright in it. Copyright cannot be transferred except by a specific written transfer, which doesn't exist in this case.
Not really enough information to go on here. If there was something in the agreement prohibiting "derivative works" it would seem that TD Ameritrade could prevent the developer from making use of the service-derived product, but as you say, this shouldn't invalidate the developer's copyright or give ownership to TDA. The actual EULA text would have been useful here.
Doing it electronically counts as "written" under law. Correct me if I misunderstand this -- there is a specific law about that, the specifics might not apply here though.
It would be so much better to identify "TD Ameritrade" instead of "Online Platform" in this HN Title.
I try to make the analysis more about the facts and the situation rather than about parties' identities. I don't want to make it sound like I have any kind of agenda toward a particular type of entity. I hear what you're saying though.
Here this party identity adds a lot of clarity. Online platform is very ambiguous as to what it even is that is being dicussed. And the litigation is the result of actions of a specific company.
Good things EULAs are not enforceable in my country. No one ever reads them.
Which country?
Norway. We have strong consumer protection rights that you cannot sign away. Also laws about unreasonable contracts.
However, strong consumer protection rights generally only protect consumers. Professionals writing commercial software and working for a company are not consumers.
(At least this is how it works at the neighbour, Finland, and I think it is the same most everywhere).
(At least this is how it works at the neighbour, Finland, and I think it is the same most everywhere).
You are probably on to something. Most Norwegians are so used to being protected as consumers so a lot of the time they are taken by surprise when acting as professionals.
True, always funny when someone skimps on taxes by buying a computer for private use as "a professional", and then gets angry when it wont get fixed for free.
But with that said, I think most stuff in an EULA wouldn't be enforceable even in a professional context. And the worst thing to happen when breaking an EULA would probably you lose your right to use the product, not whatever they wrote in the EULA.
But with that said, I think most stuff in an EULA wouldn't be enforceable even in a professional context. And the worst thing to happen when breaking an EULA would probably you lose your right to use the product, not whatever they wrote in the EULA.
Germany is an example.
Well, not completely. a) EULAs you are only shown on install (for paid software) have absolutely no meaning here. b) Otherwise, they count as T&Cs which are regulated and for example can't have any surprising clauses (which this probably would be)
Well, not completely. a) EULAs you are only shown on install (for paid software) have absolutely no meaning here. b) Otherwise, they count as T&Cs which are regulated and for example can't have any surprising clauses (which this probably would be)
At least all European countries, for example.
EULAs are only valid if you get to read them before paying for the product, otherwise it would be like getting a contract without having signed it.
EULAs are only valid if you get to read them before paying for the product, otherwise it would be like getting a contract without having signed it.
Two questions: is this a fraud? That is, is this a way to misrepresent the intention of the provider? And if it is, is it punishable as such?
TOS are usually there to keep the provider safe from such claims. By most TOS the user has close to zero rights. Legal people know what they are doing.
More of this sort of large corporate skullduggery please.
Then perhaps there will be enough political pressure to get the scam stopped.
Then perhaps there will be enough political pressure to get the scam stopped.
This was a motion to dismiss. Not a trial judgement.
Yes, it gets copyright law very wrong (you can't prevent copyright from existing by contract, you can only say who owns it, and that requires a specific written instrument).
However, the court granted leave to amend the complaint: " Ameritrade's Motion to Dismiss as to the First Counterclaim will be granted. However, leave to amend will be accorded so as to permit Mr. Matthews the opportunity to allege nonconclusory facts that explain why Mr. Matthews' alleged software modifications to TD Ameritrade's API are protected by a valid copyright."
So basically, not much to see here yet.