[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