Ideas

i c your point but like all businesses they want to make money. and they wont make money if you dont buy a license or trade a license or even let you sell the license to someone else. all companies wants to make as much money as possible...

I was thinkin of it this way...

Acme inc is on Lotus Notes and has 500 licenses. They switch to Outlook ad typically ditch the Notes licenses.

RizalCo is buying Lotus Notes a week later for two hundred people and the difference between the cost of new licenses and upgrades is $15,000.

Through this site Acme sells RizalCo their licenses for $4,000.

RizalCo saves $ overall. Acme makes money it wouldnt otherwise have. The site takes a X% cut on the transaction.

I think that Adobe allows the sale of second hand licenses but I'm not sure about many others. I know there's likely a lot of legal blocks for doing this buried in those nasty old user agreements.

complicated

This has potential.

The legal blocks could kill this idea from starting cheaply.

Very neat idea. I have reservation with the legal aspect of this idea too. I am not a lawyer but I doubt the original vendor has the legal power to stop someone from selling his or her old software - box, disc, etc.
Neat.

Can we apply the same legal structure to software like we do with used CDs and books?
There are no illegal issues with these two products (actually its a great market): I buy it so I can sell it, no?

From a legal standpoint, whether the first-sale doctrine applies to software is a grey area. Most software companies claim it does not apply because software is licensed, not sold. That means the software cannot be resold in the same way that used CDs and books are resold. While this is a grey area, a lot of well-funded software companies will go to the mat to litigate this.

http://en.wikipedia..../First-sale_doctrine

Thanks for the wikipedia def - interesting stuff. It looks like its still pretty grey though....

Microsoft v. Zamos
Microsoft was countersued in Microsoft Corp v. Zamos (Case: 5:04-cv-02504) for violating the Clayton Act. In Microsoft v. Zamos, after unsuccessfully trying to return legally acquired unopened copies of Microsoft Software purchased at a student bookstore, as specified in the Microsoft EULA, Zamos sold the software on EBay for a profit of $140.00. Microsoft investigators sent a message to Zamos, through eBay's website, asking whether the disk containing the software included the phrase "not for retail or OEM distribution." Zamos confirmed by return email the same day that the disk did include the phrase. Microsoft then sued Zamos claiming that "Microsoft has suffered and will continue to suffer substantial and irreparable damage to its business reputation and goodwill as well as losses in an amount not yet ascertained... Defendant's acts of copyright infringement have caused Microsoft irreparable injury." and sought legal fees and the profit from the sale.

Zamos responded on Jan 3, 2005 by countersuing Microsoft with Clayton Act charges and further charged that, "Microsoft purposely established and maintained a sales and distribution system whereby rightful rejection and return of merchandise that is substantially non-conforming is either impossible or practically impossible due to the ineptness of its employees, unconscionable policies, malicious intent and deceptive practices," thus engaging in fraud and violating the Consumer Sales Practice Act.

Microsoft offered to drop the case when local Ohio papers carried the story. Zamos however refused to drop the case until Microsoft apologized and paid for the cost of copies of legal documents at the local copy shop. In March 2005, Microsoft and Zamos agreed to a settlement, which included a non-disclosure agreement with regards to the settlement terms.

I really like the idea but the legal issues seam to be big... hope you find a solution!

According to:

http://www.answers.c.../first-sale-doctrine

Some states lean towards the first sale doctrine for software, while other lean towards the licensed, not sold, doctrine, with conflicting court opinions.

The potential may be large enough to make it worthwile, even if it's restricted to some states.

And don't forget other countries, where copyright and consumer laws, may clearly allow this!

But it looks it has been done:

http://www.google.co...licenses+second-hand