文档介绍：Legal Protection of Computer Software Slides（4）
By Dr. Jiong He
******@
PART 4 LICENSE OF COMPUTER SOFTght）”原则
Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc.
本案原告从CTA公司购买了被告的AutoCAD软件，该软件的许可协议要求用户在软件进行升级之后，必须销毁以前的版本。CTA 公司在安装了新版本后，并未销毁原有版本，而是将其以折扣价卖给原告。原告将软件在eBay上销售。被告得知后向eBay发出通知，告知其原告的行为侵犯其版权。eBay网终止原告的销售，并关闭其网店。故原告请求法院确认其转售行为受到首次销售规则的保护。
地区法院认为，尽管被告对于软件的使用及转让做出限制，但这只是合同的约定条款，被告既没有对原版本软件复制件的权利提出保留，也没有要求CTA 公司在安装新版本后返还旧的版本。因此地区法院沿用1977 年判决的Wise 案的规则，判决该案可以适用首次销售规则。
在上诉审中，第九巡回法院推翻了地区法院的判决，提出了判断交易是许可的标准，即版权人首先明确表示用户被授予了许可，其次在相当程度上限制用户转让软件的权利，最后对使用施加了明显的限制，满足这三个条件即可认定交易为许可。
法院认为，Autodesk 公司与CTA公司之间的软件许可协议符合上述三个要件，因此该案不适用首次销售原则。
The Ninth Circuit ruled: Autodesk retained title to the software and imposed significant transfer restrictions: it stated that the license is nontransferable, the software could not be transferred or leased without Autodesk’s written consent, and the software could not be transferred outside the Western Hemisphere. The SLA also imposed use restrictions against the use of the software outside the Western Hemisphere and against modifying, translating, or reverse-engineering the software, removing any proprietary marks from the software or documentation, or defeating any copy protection device. Furthermore, the SLA provided for termination of the license upon the licensee’s unauthorized copying or failure to comply with other license restrictions. Thus, because Autodesk reserved title to Release 14 copies and imposed significant transfer and use restrictions, we conclude that its customers are licensees of their copies of Release 14 rather than owners.
CTA was a licensee rather than an 'owner of a particular copy' of Release 14, and it was not entitled to resell its Release 14 copies to Vernor under the first sale doctrine. Therefore, Vernor did not receive title to the copies from CTA and accordingly could not pass ownership on to others. Both CTA’s and Vernor’s sales infringed Autodesk’s exclusive right to distribute copies of its work.
T