[NTLUG:Discuss] IP idemnification - a concern?
Leroy Tennison
leroy_tennison at prodigy.net
Mon Jul 11 04:24:51 CDT 2005
Fred James wrote:
> Leroy Tennison wrote:
>
>> Robert Citek wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Saw this on another list and was just wondering if this is a
>>> legitimate concern, fear mongering, or extortion?
>>>
>>> <quote>
>>> Q. What is intellectual property (IP) indemnification as it
>>> relates to software?
>>> A. IP indemnification is about software makers protecting their
>>> customers from legal costs and damages suffered as a result of
>>> litigation brought on by IP infringement — a lawsuit filed against
>>> the software user for violation of a patent, trade secret,
>>> copyright, or trademark. But to truly assess the risk involved,
>>> users need to consider a broader view of IP indemnification. They
>>> need to consider a vendor's IP management practices, including
>>> indemnification; internal IP management processes; how the vendor
>>> engages in IP protection; and the vendor's IP trade practices.
>>> While it's tempting to equate IP indemnification as an issue
>>> between conventionally licensed software versus open source
>>> software, that's definitely not the case. Users should examine the
>>> indemnification policies of every software vendor because any
>>> vendor may do a good or poor job of protecting its customers.
>>> </quote>
>>>
>>> http://download.microsoft.com/download/d/9/1/d911a75c-
>>> deda-4531-8660-ff2daab6dc6d/IDCConnect.pdf
>>>
>>> I would imagine an IT manager's reaction would be, "we can't use
>>> Open Source because it might expose us to IP litigation." Is that
>>> an accurate conclusion?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> - Robert
>>> http://www.cwelug.org/downloads
>>> Help others get OpenSource software. Distribute FLOSS
>>> for Windows, Linux, *BSD, and MacOS X with BitTorrent
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> https://ntlug.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>
>>>
>> Can you spell FUD? Sure you can! Everyone should check the
>> licensing to make sure they are legal but this seems to be
>> overblown. Open Source means Open Licensing (in the sense that you
>> should be able to read it for yourself). I could argue that, because
>> of this, you are better off with Open Source because you don't always
>> know what your proprietary vendor has incorporated into their
>> product. Remember that feature in a late version of DOS that
>> Microsoft had to replace because they lost the court case (I can't
>> even remember what it was, just that they lost and had to change).
>> If you're going to rely a vendor's IP indemnification then you need
>> to ask yourself "How financially capable are they?"
>>
>>
> A brief trip to Google with "define FUD" turned up (among others) this
> definition from
> <www.opportunitywales.co.uk/txt/0-0-0/8-0-0/glossary/glossary_a.htm
> <http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=1&oi=define&q=http://www.opportunitywales.co.uk/txt/0-0-0/8-0-0/glossary/glossary_a.htm>>,
> which I felt may sum it all up nicely (I assume this is what Leroy
> Tennison was alluding to with "Can you spell FUD? Sure you can!", and
> I take my hat off to him for the reminder): "Fear Uncertainty and
> Doubt is a method used by salesmen by providing misleading information."
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> https://ntlug.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
Just so everyone is clear, yes, I meant Fear Uncertainty and Doubt as
the definition for FUD.
More information about the Discuss
mailing list