|
Authored by: ukjaybrat on Monday, January 28 2013 @ 03:45 PM EST |
I think (or i hope) that he was implying that is what
Microsoft is arguing. I think we can all reasonably agree
that, without exact language in a contract, trying to infer
that "all purchased affiliates are automatically included
under the wording of said contract" is quite a stretch. Even
if it should have been inferred, the lack of the exact wording
would make the contract ambiguous and as PJ hinted at early
would then favor the non-drafting party, Google.
---
IANAL[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 28 2013 @ 05:50 PM EST |
Thank you for observing my looseness.
Affiliates for the purposes of my post meant those Affiliates identified
in writing in accordance with §3.1.7 of the AVC Portfolio License signed
27 January 2005 by Google [Doc. 641-Ex.1], or
those Affiliates identified in writing by Google by 28 February in
subsequent years in accordance with §3.3 of the same license.
I have assumed that the Licensee is obliged to identify all
Affiliates over which the Licensee has more than 50% control,
and I assume that failure to do so would be dealt with
under "normal" penalty provisions. q.v. argy-bargy emails
over "50% or more" vs "more than 50%'
§3.3 is the clause that obliges the Licensee to add or remove
Affiliates from the AVC License on an annual basis if the control changes.
Note however the slightly modified definition of Affiliate in the
MPEG4 Visual Patent Portfolio License [Doc 641-Ex.6]; and
different wording of the [3.1.7] requirements to identify Affiliates, and
[3.3] options for annual election of License Options; and
the failure of this license to capture Affiliates' patents in the same manner.
I also realise why these things have been submitted as scanned tiff.
No search tools for you, this is old school lawyering, naked eyeballs
and brains.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|