"EvB" wrote in message
news:5fa73c83-a9d0-44ba-a201-9ce7ff61cdb9@a29g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
On 23 Dec, 08:42, "Norman Wells" wrote:
> EvB wrote:
> > Hello everyone
>
> > This is cross-posted to uk.legal.moderated as I'm not sure how the
> > vetting of messages on that group works.
>
> Not very well is my experience of late. Four of my innocuous recent
> messages, the last four in fact, have not appeared on the group, nor have
> they appeared on any rejected lists. An email to the moderators about it
> sent to the address given in the group's charter has gone unanswered. So,
> it seems a bit random and could be a complete waste of time. You obviously
> take your chances there.
>
> If any moderator is reading this here, perhaps he'd care to comment on
> this
> unsatisfactory state of affairs.
>
>
>
> > We've just had a letter from a client of ours which purports to give
> > us rights to some software that we wrote for them under an original
> > contract where all IP in the work was vested with them.
>
> > The letter is very short and states only:
>
> > ''I am very pleased to confirm that [company] is happy to offer you
> > non-exclusive rights to the [product name] software in perpetuity.
>
> > We wish you every sucess in your future research and hope that you
> > will keep [company] appraised of any developments with the [product
> > name] software.'
>
> > How does this sit as a license agreement for us to modify and make our
> > own products from the original codebase? There are no other terms or
> > conditions attached. The use of the word 'offer' bothers me as well
> > as it seems we would have to accept it in some way, unless making
> > modifications and new products would imply acceptance by conduct.
>
> > In the event of a future dispute for copyright infringement, where
> > would this leave us? Is a court likely to interpret the letter
> > broadly in our favour or narrowly in their favour?
>
> > Also, the product name is a trademark in the UK and there is also a
> > logo for the product. Would we be entitled to use these? I think the
> > wording is far too vague to be of any real value but I'd like to see
> > what others think. I'm not clear how you could discern the true
> > intention of the licensor from their letter.
>
> > Thanks for any advice - much appreciated.
>
> It's all very vague. However, the intellectual property resides with your
> clients, and they have only 'offered' to grant you a licence, presumably
> only if you want one. If they'd meant that it should be royalty-free and
> without further consent, then I'm sure they would have said, but they
> don't.
> In the circumstances, all I think they are saying is that you can make
> further developments of the product for your own purposes, but you will
> need
> to discuss any terms with them. If you want to use the trade mark and
> logo,
> and those belong to the clients, you need to talk to them about the terms
> for that as well.
>
> It's not safe to assume you've been given carte blanche to do whatever you
> want. You need to talk to them.
Thanks very much, Norman. These are pretty much the conclusions that
I'd come to but your confirmation of my thinking is most helpful.
---------------
You may wish to reconsider your thanks if you check out Norman's posting
history. He is rarely right about anything.
|