This story is a few weeks old, but I just ran across it, and couldn't resist posting it.
Basically, a small woodworking tool manufacturer, Stots Corporation, includes a license agreement on its TemplateMaster jig tool. The tool is licensed, not sold, and customers cannot sell it or lend it to others. Nor can they sell or lend the jigs they make with it.
This expansion of IP rights is getting so extreme - what's next? Books sold under a shrinkwrap licence that limits which pages you can read? Or prevents you from lending it to someone?
You know, it just occurred to me - this links in with the Skylink garage door opener DMCA case, where the court found that use of a replacement garage door opener from a competitor did not violate the DMCA rights (access controls) put in place by Chamberlain (the original garage door maker). The ruling hinged on the fact that Chamberlain did not anywhere (packaging, websites) prevent consumers from using other manufacturer's remotes - so the core DMCA issue was left essentially untouched by the case.
In this context, it's just another example of how contractual terms are being used to cut down consumer ability to do what they want with their purchases - whether it is a jig or a garage door.
I find I am unable to comment further, due to the utter absurdity of the situation.