cybrsage
Well-Known Member
Thread Starter
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2009
- Messages
- 193
- Likes
- 22
I have done extensive research on US Federal Law (yes, US Law does not really apply here, but it was the only thing I could reliably find) about the whole "Lifetime License" issue so many are up in arms about.
First, let me say that I can understand the emotions people are feeling. The product name did not change so people feel their lifetime license should still apply. The strength of these feelings is indirectly proportional to the length of time the license purchaser has had the license. I bought mine in 2008, so my emotions are pretty much at the zero point on the subject - I got a LOT of use out of it. For someone with a 5 month license, yeah, their emotions are running at max.
The Law removes emotions from the equation, for the most part, and makes everything clinical and the goal is fairness to all. That is what lead me on my research about how the law would treat this issue.
It comes down to what happened to the original company. I will cover all the possibilities even though all but one does not apply and state what US Law says on it.
1. The original company went out of business and no one purchased the rights to the software. The lifetime license is void and null. This is obvious to all, no company at all with the product means no updates ever. This does not apply in our case.
2. The original company went out of business and another company purchased the rights to the software. The purchasing company is under no obligation to honor any warranties or license agreements unless such items are part of the receivership agreement. This does not apply in our case.
3. The original company went out of business due to a legal shuffle in which only the name and tax ids were changed. The ownership of the company did not change hands at all or changed hands to close relatives or to someone already in upper management of the original company (aka, a close held individual). The new company is required to honor all warranties and licenses. This might apply in our case.
4. The original company went out of business and a new or different already existing company (that is not owned by a close held person - see 3 for more info on close held person) reverse engineered or somehow obtained in depth info about their products and started to produce these products. The new company is not required to honor any warranties or licenses. This might apply in our case.
To know if 3 or 4 applied in our case we have to know if any of the current owners of RedFox were owners, close relatives (spouse, brother, sister, parent, child), or other close held persons in SlySoft. From what I have read on this forum, the new owners were all mid management and lower level employees of SlySoft, that none of them were upper management. If this is true, then number 4 applies. If any of the new owners were specifically executive management (I have no idea how many management layers SlySoft had, I suspect few) then number 3 may very well apply.
My personal view, from what I have read about the ownership of RedFox, is that number 4 applies, If that is the case then there is absolutely no requirement to honor any warranties or licenses sold by the previous company. No one has to like it but everyone has to accept it.
Unless someone can show how 3 applies, then 4 is our situation. I hope this puts the issue to rest once and for all.
First, let me say that I can understand the emotions people are feeling. The product name did not change so people feel their lifetime license should still apply. The strength of these feelings is indirectly proportional to the length of time the license purchaser has had the license. I bought mine in 2008, so my emotions are pretty much at the zero point on the subject - I got a LOT of use out of it. For someone with a 5 month license, yeah, their emotions are running at max.
The Law removes emotions from the equation, for the most part, and makes everything clinical and the goal is fairness to all. That is what lead me on my research about how the law would treat this issue.
It comes down to what happened to the original company. I will cover all the possibilities even though all but one does not apply and state what US Law says on it.
1. The original company went out of business and no one purchased the rights to the software. The lifetime license is void and null. This is obvious to all, no company at all with the product means no updates ever. This does not apply in our case.
2. The original company went out of business and another company purchased the rights to the software. The purchasing company is under no obligation to honor any warranties or license agreements unless such items are part of the receivership agreement. This does not apply in our case.
3. The original company went out of business due to a legal shuffle in which only the name and tax ids were changed. The ownership of the company did not change hands at all or changed hands to close relatives or to someone already in upper management of the original company (aka, a close held individual). The new company is required to honor all warranties and licenses. This might apply in our case.
4. The original company went out of business and a new or different already existing company (that is not owned by a close held person - see 3 for more info on close held person) reverse engineered or somehow obtained in depth info about their products and started to produce these products. The new company is not required to honor any warranties or licenses. This might apply in our case.
To know if 3 or 4 applied in our case we have to know if any of the current owners of RedFox were owners, close relatives (spouse, brother, sister, parent, child), or other close held persons in SlySoft. From what I have read on this forum, the new owners were all mid management and lower level employees of SlySoft, that none of them were upper management. If this is true, then number 4 applies. If any of the new owners were specifically executive management (I have no idea how many management layers SlySoft had, I suspect few) then number 3 may very well apply.
My personal view, from what I have read about the ownership of RedFox, is that number 4 applies, If that is the case then there is absolutely no requirement to honor any warranties or licenses sold by the previous company. No one has to like it but everyone has to accept it.
Unless someone can show how 3 applies, then 4 is our situation. I hope this puts the issue to rest once and for all.