Can a license agreement apply to a physical object? I purchased this board from Digi-Key for $27.97. Later, I noticed on the ST website that there is a license agreement for the board. (To be clear, I did not agree to the license when I purchased the board from Digi-Key, not even in a click-through fashion.) What disturbs me about the license is that it seems to apply not only to the software/firmware, but to the physical board itself. And it states that: STMicroelectronics (“ST”) grants You the right to use the enclosed Evaluation Board offering limited features only to evaluate and test ST products solely for Your evaluation and testing purposes in a research and development setting. It's not clear that my use would be "evaluation and testing," since I intend to actually do something useful/practical with it. (i. e. I am a maker and intend to incorporate it into a project I'm building.) Furthermore, the license says that the board may not be resold. Although I'm not really intending to resell it, I would generally consider something I bought to be fair game to eBay when I'm done with it and don't need it anymore. How does this restriction fit with the Doctrine of First Sale? I intend to use open source software on the board, to the extent possible. Though there are possibly some bits of the firmware (maybe the bootloader, for example) which are closed-source and cannot be replaced. Does the existence of this firmware on the board mean that ST Microelectronics can control what the board as a whole is used for? As a hypothetical, could the manufacturer of a washing machine include a "license agreement" which prohibits selling the washing machine to someone else when you don't need it anymore? (And if the answer is "no", what makes it different than my situation?)
The agreement linked in the question seems to be or to purport to be, for a non-final, non-production version of the board. I have seen such agreements used, both for hardware and software, used when beta-test versions of products are being distributed to those who agree to do such testing, often in exchange for a reduced price on the final product, or an early look. I have also seen similar language used when an evaluation version of a product is provided free, or at a much reduced price. In such a use, it would be a reasonable contract, it seem to me, and I see no reason why if it were agreed to by both parties in such a situation, it would not be binding. Often such agreements also include a non-disclosure aspect, but this one does not seem to do so. I cannot see how such an agreement could be made applicable automatically, without both parties having chosen to agree to it, and indicated this by signing, clicking, or in some other positive way. I doubt that it could be made automatically applicable, on an "by using this product you agree" basis. I don't know of any physical consumer product, or appliance, sold with such an agreement in ordinary commerce. I am not sure what would happen if a manufacturer wanted to require all purchasers to sign such an agreement. I don't know if it would be binding. I would think that the purchaser's rights under the First Sale doctrice, could be modified by a valid contract agreed to by the purchaser. I do not think that they could simply be revoked by a contract of adhesion, which the purchaser had no choice to decline before making the purchase. As the OP says this was not signed or agreed to in any way, I can't see how it binds the OP.
Their code, their rules A copyright holder is free to offer their work under none, one or many licences. They can, at the same time, use their own work however they see fit without regard to the licences they have given/sold to others (except, they can only give one person an exclusive licence). As an analogy, let’s say I own a fleet of cars. I can drive my cars anytime I want. I can let Jim drive my cars anytime he wants for free. I can let Mary drive a specific car on Thursdays and only within 10km of the depot. I can let Joe drive my cars providing he pays me $50 a day. And I’m not going to let Fred drive them at all because Fred’s a jerk. Each of those is a different licence.
The words "proprietary format" are important. Are you sure the format is proprietary? If it is, then it's likely protected in which case they might have grounds to sue (but that does not mean they would definetly win). If the format is not proprietary, and so long as you don't share data which is proprietary then I believe you fine. I'm not a lawyer - but I cite GIF files as an example. They were still protected by the US and some other countries until at least the late 90s and there were various threats to open source linux companies who shared code that used the file format. I'm not aware of anything other than threats and never heard of any company being sued, let alone winning or losing. Another example that comes to mind is the RedHat ISO format. My understanding is RedHat could not stop anyone from sharing open source, but they could prevent folks from sharing the format they assembled and shared the open source. Again, I am not sure if it was ever tested in any court of law anywhere.
The companies really need to speak to an IP lawyer as this question is seeking specific advice which this site is loathe to give out for fear of compouding issues. The answer would depend on the license agreements and enforceability in various jurisdictions. According to https://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/vstudio/en-US/0368d7ee-0eb3-4e3e-a143-4410969a15bb/eula-for-vs2010?forum=vssetup Microsoft says you cant rent out the software - but this applies to the "Pro" version - I could not find anything on the "Premium" version - so most likely Microsoft to have some clam. The flipside is how enforceable this EULA is - and this would probably vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. It would be a very, very good idea to speak to a lawyer before letting Microsoft come onto the premises - as "inviting them" to do this is almost certainly not going to improve the Asians company's case and will allow Microsoft to go fishing further and make it easier for them to expand on and collect evidence should they decide to pursue the matter.
Marks are to denominate the origin of goods. Nintendo built Gameboys for decades. Some GameBoys have aftermarket parts like the NAKI Action Light, a peripheral never made by Nintendo but was nothing but a light and a 1.5 magnification lens. It was advertised as &quot;Fitting a Game Boy TM&quot; and didn't use Nintendo marks. That is nominative use and allowed. Then, Nintendo actually had stocks of spare parts that ended on the open market by now. those are genuine Nintendo parts, made for Nintendo, with the marks on it. Those are proper marks. Some people bought up tons of old Game Boys and took them apart for spares. Those are still genuine parts, even if used, and the mark is proper. Nintendo didn't make all the parts for Gameboy themselves. They had contracted OEMs (original equipment manufacturers) that created parts for construction of the toys. These were in part branded and marked in the OEM factory still, the OEMs had a license to make and mark parts. Parts produced till the lapse of the license would be most likely proper as for most intents and purposes Nintendo did endorse the manufacturing in this fashion. However after the licensee lapsed or if it doesn't contain a &quot;put the markings on it&quot; clause, marking would not be allowed (anymore). Finally, there are spare parts that were just made to Nintendo specs, that are not originating with Nintendo, and are marked with Nintendo marks. Such copy parts infringe on the Trademark of Nintendo. There is legal space in the aftermarket spare part market: Parts that are to specs but not marked with the marks denominating the origin. Those can be advertised akin to the NAKI Action Light &quot;fitting a Game Boy TM&quot; without infringing on marks.
Yes, you do. But you should not base your claim primarily on copyright, but just on the license contract you agreed to. It's typically much easier to prove that a party did not fulfill its part of a sales contract (here: Pay the agreed amount) than to prove violation of a copyright you own. Also, you then only need to sue one guy, and not care about every platform your game might be hosted on. This is particularly difficult here, since they have not done anything wrong. It's not their fault that the publisher didn't properly pay the programmer. They (very likely) got their copy of the game legally. For details, you should consult a lawyer. We can't give you detailed legal advice.
Rather than saying "for Project®" which might fairly be interpreted to indicate an affiliation with Microsoft, you ought to say something like "intended to be compatible with Project® (not affiliated with or endorsed by Microsoft)." can you imagine a worse scenario than Microsoft sending a Cease and Desist notice? In that case, I can imagine re-branding to "MYBRAND for E-Mail" as the logo/name and a textual reference to "The [MyBrand for E-Mail] Add-In for Microsoft® Outlook®.". What is the worst case scenario? You could be sued by Microsoft for trademark infringement under the Lanham Act and if you lost, forced to change your product name and to destroy all existing inventory, forced to disgorge all profits you have ever made from selling your product ever, forced to pay their attorneys' fees and costs (which won't be cheap) in addition to your own legal team, have your products seized and destroyed when imported by customs agents follow an ex parte court hearing (i.e. one you had no notice of) secretly brought by Microsoft, and forced to pay punitive damages equal to double the profits you made in addition to the profits themselves. You might not even be able to discharge the judgment against you by going bankrupt and the punitive damages would probably not be tax deductible. Microsoft has every right to do this even if you fully comply with their cease and desist letter. A criminal trademark prosecution would be unlikely in this fact pattern.
Both BSD and MIT require you to share "the notice" even when only distributing the software in binary form. For BSD: "Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.". For MIT: "The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.". What you need to do is to include these licenses in a "LEGAL"/"LICENSES" folder of the download package.