"Most of the arguments against the enforceability of EULAs, particularly when they eviscerate protections under copyright law, are based on the assumption that purchasers don't really assent to the EULA's provisions, and if they do, they don't have much choice but to agree to the terms... The argument now is routinely rejected in just about every context in which it arises. It's the "triumph" of law & economics."

"But this argument against form contracts really has two components. The first is that consumers don't read/understand the terms and have no idea what they're agreeing to. The second is that, even if consumers understand precisely what they're agreeing to, they don't have a choice but to accept those terms."

"You may not distribute, rent, lease, loan modify or create derivative works, adapt, translate, perform, display, sublicense or transfer software.You may not copy any of the written materials accompanying the CD-ROM. You may not reverse engineer, disassemble or decompile the Software except to the extent that this restriction is expressly prohibited by applicable law."

"The Court finds that the provisions contained in Adobe's EULA purport to diminish the rights of customers to use the software in ways ordinarily enjoyed by customers under copyright law. Therefore, these restrictions appear to be inconsistent with the balance of rights set forth in intellectual property law. Commentators have noted that the arguments for enforcing this balance are particularly persuasive in the context of shrinkwrap licenses because the balance of rights in intellectual property law is already tilted heavily in favour of the intellectual property owner."

"The District Court below erroneously endorsed plaintiffs' leveraging of copyrights in proprietary game software to unjustifiably restrict entry by third parties into an ancillary or related market: the provision of on-line platforms for interactive multi-player gaming. It concluded that by devising the "bnetd" software utility and offering it to on-line gamers on a voluntary non-profit basis, as an optional alternative to the plaintiffs' Battle.net service, the defendants had infringed intellectual property rights and breached contractual obligations."

"In particular, the District Court found that by using reverse engineering techniques that involved unauthorized "intermediate reproduction" of the proprietary game and server software code, the developers of the bnetd software had violated End User License Agreements (EULAs) distributed with plaintiffs' CD-ROMs, as well as Terms of Use (TOUs) that appear on their websites. Such a conclusion, however, runs contrary to the doctrine and policy of settled law regarding the permissibility of reverse engineering in connection with legitimate software development."

".intellectual property law should serve to promote rather than to frustrate socially useful innovation, and second, that intellectual property owners should not be permitted to misuse their limited legal authority by extending it beyond its actual area of application - the market for the work in question."

"Nevertheless, the District Court concluded that even where reverse engineering of software may qualify as "fair use" under copyright, it can be prohibited by the terms of "shrink-wrap" or "click-on" licenses. This Court should reject that conclusion - both because the enforcement of such contract terms is preempted by copyright and because such contracts constitute misuse of copyright."

"Davidson had every right to stop the Defendants from creating an alternate forum for playing the game. I also disagree with the criticism of EULA's. So many software programs come with EULA's these days that you have to agree to in order to use the software. Prohibiting reverse engineering of a commercial gaming software program isn't one of the seven deadly sins in my book. I think it's the right outcome, we'll see if the reasoning used here survives scrutiny in other cases. I doubt this one is worthy of Supreme Court review."

"It is prohibited in the conduct of business to use any representation which is likely to influence the demand for or supply of goods, services or other performances, when the representation does not provide adequate or sufficient guidance or introduces irrelevant matter and must therefore be considered unfair.

The same shall apply to any other procedure that may have such an influence on demand or supply if it exploits the lack of experience or knowledge of consumers and must therefore be considered unfair."

"A term is unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations under the contract, to the detriment of consumers.

'Good faith' means that traders must deal fairly and openly with you.

Although standard terms may be drafted to protect commercial needs, they must also take account of your interests and rights by going no further than is necessary to protect those legitimate commercial interests.

According to the UTCCRs, a standard term must be expressed in plain and intelligible language. A term is open to challenge if it could put you at a disadvantage because you are not clear about its meaning - even if its meaning could be worked out by a lawyer. If there is doubt as to what a term means, the meaning most favourable to the consumer will apply."

"Your use of the Software, your access to your Account and your playing the Game constitutes your agreement to defend, indemnify and hold harmless Funcom and its affiliated companies, employees, contractors, officers and directors from any claim or demand, including reasonable attorneys' fees arising of your use or misuse of the Software, your access to your Account and your playing the Game, including a third party's use or misuse of your password."

"What it comes down to is, does a MMORPG player have rights to his time, or does Mythic own that player's time? It is unfair of Mythic to stop those who wish to sell their items, currency or even their own accounts, which were created with their own time. Mythic, in my opinion, and hopefully the court's, does not have the copyright ownership to regulate what a player does with his or her own time or to determine how much that time is worth on the free market." - Blacksnow Director of Sales, Lee Cadwell.