• Welcome
    Sponsors
  • Director
    Members
    Advisory Board
    International Advisory Council
    Research Affiliates
    IPilogue Editors
    Alumni
  • IPilogue
    Events
    Publications
  • JD
    Graduate Program
    Clinical
    Prizes & Awards
  • The IPIGRAM Archive
    Events Archive
    IP in the News
    IP Poll of the Week
    IP Pick of the Week
    Gowlings IPilogue Prize
  • Legislation
    Journals
    Government
  • Contact Us
    Subscribe

For (Re)Sale: The ECJ Rules on the Exhaustion of Software Distribution Rights

August 14, 2012 by Adam Del Gobbo

Early in July, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) came to a decision with regards to the distribution rights retained by a software company. The ruling, resulting from litigation between UsedSoft GmbH and Oracle International Corp., which can be found here, will prove an important one in today’s increasingly digital society.

The case was initiated by Oracle in response to UsedSoft’s 2005 promotion which advertised “already used” licenses for Oracle programs (UsedSoft’s website can be found here). The decision comes at a time when a number of software companies are already scrambling due to an increasing frequency in pirated software downloads, and only time will tell as to what lasting effect the decision will have on the industry.

The main issues decided by the ECJ can be summarized in a few main points: a downloaded copy of a program along with the conclusion of a user license agreement is considered a sale and thereby extinguishes the distribution rights of the copyright holder (it can be considered a transfer of rights of ownership); the obtained license can be sold to others, making them lawful acquirers of the product; and lastly, in order to avoid infringing the rights of the copyright holder, the license must be sold wholesale and the seller cannot retain the program for personal use.

The ruling by the ECJ will cause a number of ripples throughout the European Union, national courts around the world, and the software industry. Within the context of the EU, while the ECJ’s decision is not binding to national courts, a final judgment in Germany concerning the same case will probably look to the ECJ ruling for guidance. Similarly, while distribution and reproduction laws differ from the EU when compared to Canada and the United States, the decision might have some influence on judges that find themselves presiding over similar cases.

The largest impact that is expected to result from such a decision is expected to be on the operation and success of the software industry. If such a decision gains momentum through the rest of the world, it is very possible that companies similar to UsedSoft could quickly become a new viable business.

While the software industry will remain anxious about this kind of ruling becoming the norm, there is an ongoing debate (with proponents on either side) about whether this type of reselling should be allowed when it comes to digital content. In the automotive industry, used cars are increasingly featured even at the new car dealerships; in the console video game industry, publishers are trying every possible method to prevent the losses of sales that used game retailers like GameStop have been targeting. If reselling is allowed in these types of businesses, why would it not be allowed in a digital environment?

Another approach that software companies might take if such rulings become more common is to move to a different business model to avoid exhausting their distribution rights. Something like this would avoid the language that the ECJ used when describing the “unlimited period” of use provided to consumers by the copyright holder. However, more “sneaky” practices like this might have the unfortunate consequence of pushing those people that would purchase a product legitimately to pirate such content. Hopefully, cases like this will allow the law to grow to the point where consumer and publisher rights are balanced against each other appropriately.

Adam Del Gobbo is a JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

Posted in Copyright, Internet, Licensees, Ownership

Leave a Reply

All replies and responses are moderated and will not appear on the site immediately. Please see our response policy.

« Quantum of Solace: UK Court Deems Police Retention of Uncharged Suspect Photos an Invasion of Privacy | Software Becomes that Much Harder to Patent in the United States »

Career Opportunities
Osgoode IP Club
Writing Competitions
IP Research Guide

Follow @IPilogue

RSS Follow Comments via RSS
  • Denise Brunsdon on The Living Daylights (…Scents, Tastes, and Sounds): Bill C-56 Forebodes Drastic Trade-mark Reform
  • Denise Brunsdon on Must Every Canadian Patent Application Include the Inventor’s Best Mode of Working the Invention?
  • Matt on Mario Bouchard: Copyright Quintet opus 1. no.1, by McLachlin et al
  • Danny Titolo on The ‘Myriad’ with the Golden ‘Gene’: Australia Upholds Breast Cancer Gene Patents
  • Tracy Ayodele on Exceptions which Circumvent Logic
  • Nancy Situ on Military Tactics and Rock Star Patent Lawyers; the Patent System under Stress
  • Laura on The Rise and Fall [and Rise Again?] of BlackBerry
  • Howard Knopf on How Music Can Help You, And You Can Help Music – An Interview With Graham Henderson
  • Paul Atkinson on Bill C-56 Remedies: Rights Holders Can All Feel a Little Safer
  • Bart Cormier on The Living Daylights (…Scents, Tastes, and Sounds): Bill C-56 Forebodes Drastic Trade-mark Reform
RSS Follow Posts via RSS
  • Law, Culture, Critique
  • EU Moving Toward New Trade-Mark Regime
  • A Cautionary Kudos: Canada Moves Up on USTR IP Watch List
  • New Step for the Modernization of Copyright Law in the US – Progress or Regress?
  • Reminder: Canada’s IP Writing Challenge 2013
  • Property in Brands
  • Strike Three, Viacom
  • New Book – The Copyright Pentalogy: How the Supreme Court of Canada Shook the Foundations of Canadian Copyright Law
  • The Curious Case of Fake Beijing Olympics Merchandise
  • About the Boundaries of Fairness in Fair Use
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • Advisory Board (9)
  • Announcements (31)
  • Blogs (24)
  • Book Review (5)
  • Broadcasting Regulatory Policy (8)
  • Cloud Services (11)
  • Commercialization (90)
  • Competition (19)
  • Competition Law (14)
  • Contracts (69)
  • copyright reform (159)
  • defamation (19)
  • Design (16)
  • Development (6)
  • European Union (56)
  • events (89)
  • Fashion Industry (23)
  • Feature Post (207)
  • Freedom of Speech (22)
  • Freedom of the Press (17)
  • Gaming (9)
  • General (151)
  • Human Rights (10)
  • Image (6)
  • Innovation (156)
  • Internet (274)
  • IP (1245)
    • Copyright (619)
      • CD Levy (10)
      • Digital Downloads (78)
      • Digital Libraries (7)
      • Digital Locks (34)
      • Fair Dealing (80)
        • Parody (2)
        • Satire (1)
      • Infringement (158)
      • Internet Sharing (96)
      • Literary Works (65)
      • Moral Rights (16)
      • Movies (53)
      • Music Industry (105)
      • Originality (34)
      • Ownership (107)
        • Licensees (39)
      • Secondary (ISP) Liability (18)
      • Subsidiary Rights (5)
    • IP Reform (38)
    • Patents (382)
      • Access to Medicines (21)
      • Cross Border Issues (50)
      • Electronic Processes (20)
      • Infringement (72)
      • Patent Practice (27)
      • Patent Trolls (21)
      • Patentability (109)
      • Pharmaceutical Drugs (76)
    • Trademarks (245)
      • Domain Names (44)
      • Famous Marks (20)
      • Official Marks (11)
      • Parallel Importation (4)
      • Personality Rights (12)
  • IP Course Topic (13)
  • IP Intensive (26)
  • IP Litigation Practice (17)
  • Jurisdiction (179)
    • Canada (82)
    • Indonesia (1)
    • Japan (2)
    • UK (41)
    • US (75)
  • Law & Music Course Topic (21)
  • Links (3)
  • MediaLaws (17)
  • Music Industry (86)
  • Open-Source (18)
  • Osgoode Alumnus (14)
  • Patents Course Topic (28)
  • Privacy (188)
    • Electronic Databases (42)
    • Human Rights Issues (31)
    • Identity Theft (14)
  • Regulatory Policy (65)
  • Reputation Management (4)
  • Smartphones (14)
  • Social Justice (4)
    • United Nations Development Programme (2)
  • Social Media (30)
  • Supreme Court of Canada (35)
  • Tech Transfer (31)
  • Technology (245)
  • Telecommunications (89)
  • Trade Secrets (9)
  • UK (19)
  • Uncategorized (102)
  • US-Canada Relations (5)
  • WIPO (18)
  • Log in

Home   |   Contact Us   |   Feedback  |   Privacy   

© 2008 Osgoode Hall Law School York University
4700 Keele Street Toronto, Canada M3J 1P3
T:416.736.5030   F:416.736.5736