No. 09-35969
__________________________________
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
__________________________________
TIMOTHY S. VERNOR,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
AUTODESK, INC.,
Defendant-Appellant.
__________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Hon. Richard A. Jones
__________________________________
APPELLEE’S BRIEF
__________________________________
Gregory A. Beck
Deepak Gupta
PUBLIC CITIZEN LITIGATION GROUP
1600 20th St., NW
Washington, DC 20009
Phone: (202) 588-1000
Fax: (202) 588-7795
Counsel for Plaintiff-Appellee
Case: 09-35969 02/04/2010 Page: 1 of 62 ID: 7221033 DktEntry: 29-1
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................... iii
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT........................................1
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES...............................................................................6
STATEMENT OF THE CASE..................................................................................7
I.
Autodesk’s Interference with Vernor’s Resale of Authentic,
Used Copies of AutoCAD Software .....................................................7
II.
The District Court’s Decisions Below ................................................11
ARGUMENT ...........................................................................................................12
I.
The First Sale Doctrine Prohibits Use of a Limited License to
Restrict Distribution of Particular Copies of a Copyrighted
Work....................................................................................................12
A.
Whether Autodesk “Licensed” a Copyrighted Work
Sheds No Light on Whether It Sold a Particular Copy of
that Work...................................................................................13
B.
Hampton Is About Transfer of Copyright, Not Transfer
of Particular Copies...................................................................17
C.
Purporting to Grant a License That Is “Nontransferable”
Does Not Restrict the Right to Distribute a Particular
Copy. .........................................................................................19
II.
The Transfer of the Particular Copies of AutoCAD at Issue Was
a Sale, And Vernor Therefore Has the Right to Redistribute
Those Copies. ......................................................................................25
A.
The Economic Realities of the Exchange Determine the
Nature of the Relevant Transactions.........................................26
Case: 09-35969 02/04/2010 Page: 2 of 62 ID: 7221033 DktEntry: 29-1
ii
B.
The Economic Realities of the Exchange in This Case
Conclusively Demonstrate That the Relevant
Transactions Were Sales...........................................................29
1.
Autodesk Permanently Released Possession of the
Copies. ........................................................................... 30
2.
Autodesk Received Full Payment at the Time of
the Transaction............................................................... 33
3.
The Other Circumstances Surrounding the
Transaction Resemble a Typical Retail Sale................. 34
III.
Not MAI, But Wise, Is the Controlling Precedent...............................36
A.
The MAI Footnote Does Not Create a Categorical Rule
that an Agreement Labeled a “License” Can Never
Convey Ownership....................................................................36
B.
Wise, as the First Decided Case, Is the Controlling
Precedent...................................................................................42
1.
The Broadcast and Performance Licenses..................... 46
2.
The V.I.P. Contracts ...................................................... 47
3.
The Salvage Contracts................................................... 50
IV.
Whether Software Should Be Given Special Protection Is a
Question to Be Answered by Congress, Not the Courts.....................52
CONCLUSION........................................................................................................52
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE.......................................................................54
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................55
Case: 09-35969 02/04/2010 Page: 3 of 62 ID: 7221033 DktEntry: 29-1
