decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
"Affiliates are all automatically included at signing of the license," | 141 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
"Affiliates are all automatically included at signing of the license,"
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 | # ]

"Affiliates are all automatically included at signing of the license,"
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 | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )