“Purchaser shall not sell or transfer any Cat purchased hereunder to anyone other than an immediate family member, and shall not offer to any person the purchase of a Cat or any genetic material from a Cat, the rights Purchaser may have under this Agreement, or any other right related hereto, without the Company’s express written authorization.”
– An extract from the click through licence one is required to agree to when ordering a genetically modified hypoallergenic cat from a company named Allerca. (Via Boingboing).
But is the family member who purchases the cat from the original purchaser under any obligation not to re-sell?
Until I got to ‘ordering’ I honestly thought this was an extract from a software license, put in there to see if anyone actually read the damn things.
It does sound like a software EULA, and it also sounds just about as legally enforceable; not at all. As far as I’m aware any amount of a software company’s (or cat company’s) legalistic mumbo jumbo is null and void in the face of the First Sale Doctrine.
A copyright on a cat, ha ha. It aptly demonstrates the absurdity of copyright.
This isn’t another Bonsai Kitten thing is it? Wait for the PETA lot to start screaming about GM kitties …
Gee, I wonder if kitties could be genetically modified to this degree?
The hypoallergenic cats aren’t gm, they’re the product of selective breeding.
Are you sure the above EULA isn’t really part of a Monty Python skit?