The legal status of contracting contracts in the United States is somewhat unclear. In the 1980s, Louisiana and Illinois passed software licensing laws to address this issue, but parts of Louisiana`s law were struck down in Vault Corp. v. Quaid Software Ltd. and Illinois law was quickly repealed.  Even the story of the case does not leave confusion. A case line follows ProCD v. Zeidenberg, which found these contracts enforceable (see p.B. Bowers v.
Baystate Technologies) and the other following Klocek v. Gateway, Inc., which found existing contracts unenforceable (p. B. Specht/Netscape Communications Corp.), but did not comment on all contract contracts. These decisions are divided on the issue of consent, the first being the assertion that only an objective manifestation of consent is necessary, while the second requires at least the possibility of subjective consent. In particular, the Netscape contract was refused because it had no explicit consent (no « I agree ») and because the contract was not presented directly to the user (users had to click on a link to access the terms). However, the Tribunal stated in that case that a sufficiently striking communication on the existence of the contractual terms and a clear expression of consumer consent to these conditions are essential for electronic negotiations to be of integrity and credibility. » Pivert, 306 F.3d 17. The term « Shrink Wrap » describes plastic retractable film packaging, plastered software boxes or conditions that come with products. While the nature of the terms of sale in contraction agreements varies considerably from one supplier to another, there are a number of common topics. In general, Shrink-Wrap agreements contain the following potentially problematic terms: some Shrink Wrap agreements contain expansive « information feedback » and similar clauses that could lead the donor to acquire ownership of the buyer`s intellectual property.
The contract contains the language that the buyer cedes his intellectual property rights to the seller. In some cases, almost anything the buyer shares with the seller, including during support discussions, may become the seller`s property or at least lead the seller to have an unbridled license to use what he has learned for his own commercial purposes. At best, this can lead to the buyer essentially granting the seller a free license for the buyer`s valuable intellectual property.