Holding
The court first held that copyright law did not preempt contract law. Under the 1991 Supreme Court case Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service, the court held that a telephone directory was not protectable through copyright. In this case, the court assumes that a database of a telephone directory was equally not protectable. However, the court held that a contract could confer among the parties similar rights since those rights are not "equivalent to any of the exclusive rights within the general scope of copyright".
The court then held the license valid and enforceable as a contract. The court relied primarily on the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) sections 2-204 (describing a valid contract) and 2-206 (describing acceptance of a contract). There was little doubt that ProCD, in fact, offered use of the software as described by UCC section 22606. The court examined more closely the question of acceptance.
The court held that Zeidenberg did accept the offer by clicking through. The court noted that he "had no choice, because the software splashed the license on the screen and would not let him proceed without indicating acceptance". The court stated that Zeidenberg could have rejected the terms of the contract and returned the software. The court, in addition, noted the ability and "the opportunity to return goods can be important" under the Uniform Commercial Code.
Read more about this topic: Pro CD V. Zeidenberg
Famous quotes containing the word holding:
“Adolescence is a time when children are supposed to move away from parents who are holding firm and protective behind them. When the parents disconnect, the children have no base to move away from or return to. They aren’t ready to face the world alone. With divorce, adolescents feel abandoned, and they are outraged at that abandonment. They are angry at both parents for letting them down. Often they feel that their parents broke the rules and so now they can too.”
—Mary Pipher (20th century)
“The car as we know it is on the way out. To a large extent, I deplore its passing, for as a basically old- fashioned machine, it enshrines a basically old-fashioned idea: freedom. In terms of pollution, noise and human life, the price of that freedom may be high, but perhaps the car, by the very muddle and confusion it causes, may be holding back the remorseless spread of the regimented, electronic society.”
—J.G. (James Graham)
“... Washington was not only an important capital. It was a city of fear. Below that glittering and delightful surface there is another story, that of underpaid Government clerks, men and women holding desperately to work that some political pull may at any moment take from them. A city of men in office and clutching that office, and a city of struggle which the country never suspects.”
—Mary Roberts Rinehart (1876–1958)