Talk:Clickwrap
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Anomoly or reference makrk?
"agreement by clicking on an icon. n12 The product cannot be obtained" I have removed th n12 for the moment,. Rich Farmbrough, 21:51 20 February 2007 (GMT).
[edit] Cleanup?
I cleaned up some of the legal citations, but I think this article, especially the opening section, could use some clarity. Weazie 19:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Confused about Register.com v. Verio
Currently the article says this about Register.com v. Verio (reformatted):
The described key to a clickwrap agreement was that acceptance or rejection must occur before being given access. "Essentially, under a clickwrap arrangement, potential licensees are presented with the proposed license terms and forced to expressly and unambiguously manifest either assent or rejection prior to being given access to the product." The court held that the click-wrap dynamic did not exist where users were presented with the license simultaneously with the end product.
I read through the legal report, and the court seems to unambiguously take the opposite position.
Nor can Verio argue that it has not assented to Register.com’s terms of use. Register.com’s terms of use are clearly posted on its website. The conclusion of the terms paragraph states “[b]y submitting this query, you agree to abide by these terms.’’ (Ex. 27 to Pl.’s Sept. 8, 2000 Motion). Verio does not argue that it was unaware of these terms, only that it was not asked to click on an icon indicating that it accepted the terms. However, in light of this sentence at the end of Register.com's terms of use, there can be no question that by proceeding to submit a WHOIS query, Verio manifested its assent to be bound by Register.com's terms of use, and a contract was formed and subsequently breached.
So I Googled the quoted statement of the court ("Essentially, under a clickwrap arrangement . . ."), and instead of being brought to a court-issued report, I was brought to this web page.
I'm inclined to conclude that
- this article and the quoted source (above) are plainly wrong about the court's stance, and
- the quote ("Essentially . . .") is misleading as it's framed as a court statement but actually comes from an independent source (which isn't cited)
... but, could someone perform a sanity check and tell me if I'm overlooking something?
Thanks, — xDanielx T/C\R 18:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- It appears that the web page you found was using Wikipedia as a source. The Wayback shows a version of the page from 18 November 2005 that doesn't include that text. The article history, though, indicates that the text was added on 15 July 2005. In any case, though, if the article doesn't conform to the sources, then the article should be changed, and the guy who wrote the webpage you found should learn his lesson on not using Wikipedia as a primary source. --DachannienTalkContrib 11:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
