Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Intellectual Property Law Blogs -> Groklaw

Intellectual Property Law

: Groklaw

ATandT EULA's Terms Are Found "Unconscionable" - What Does That Mean?

By Pamela Jones et al.

I thought you might like to read a hot-off-the-presses appellate court decision [PDF] in a case from Washington State, McKee (Michael) v. AT&T Corp., where the court just found certain clauses in AT&T's EULA "unconscionable". I have it as text for you.

But what does that mean? This ruling will help you find out. The ruling explains what the term means. And there's a section on choice of law, too, which some of you were asking about the other day, so you can see how the court chose Washington State, despite the AT&T argument that it should be New York.

Now that we've decided to follow the Apple v. Psystar case, I was particularly interested in sharing it with you, because this ruling will help you understand one of the affirmative defenses Psystar has raised, claiming that Apple's terms are both substantively and procedurally unconscionable. It's their 13th affirmative defense.

I also want you to see why I always tell you that it's in the court system that the little guy at least has a chance to get a fair shake, no matter how huge and powerful the other side might be.

Full post as published by Groklaw on September 01, 2008 (boomark / email).