a colleague of mine is in the process of buying a netapp, but is a little off-put by the part of the purchase agreement that says:
[...]
If a Product becomes, or in NetApp's opinion is likely to become, the subject of an infringement claim, NetApp may, at its option:-
buy back the Product by paying the Customer that Product?s reasonable depreciated value.
[...]
he feels that building an important piece of company infrastructure on a device which can be repossessed by the vendor after purchase is complete might be a bit of a CLM (career-limiting move).
has anyone else noticed this in the purchase agreement? does it worry anyone? what's the big idea?
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005, Tom Yates wrote:
has anyone else noticed this in the purchase agreement? does it worry anyone? what's the big idea?
thanks to those who replied. prevailing wisdom seems to be that IP-indemnification clauses are now quite common, and certainly sought-after by purchasing departments, possibly as a result of the whole SCO bunfight. whether or not it makes any sense, or helps, or indeed whether the cure might be worse than the disease, seems not often to be addressed!
I think the jist is..dont infringe on Netapps legal rights/etc, and they wont have to take it away from you.
On 7/20/05 2:31 AM, "Tom Yates" madlists@teaparty.net wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005, Tom Yates wrote:
has anyone else noticed this in the purchase agreement? does it worry anyone? what's the big idea?
thanks to those who replied. prevailing wisdom seems to be that IP-indemnification clauses are now quite common, and certainly sought-after by purchasing departments, possibly as a result of the whole SCO bunfight. whether or not it makes any sense, or helps, or indeed whether the cure might be worse than the disease, seems not often to be addressed!
Uhmmmmmm I think that isn't the issue. I'd say that the issue is: If someone sues NETAPP over some infringment that NATAPP did, and wins netapp can by back the infringing machine from you and not have to pay some really inflated royality -if netapp has something in the field, the owner of the infringed upon item can pretty much chareg the moon for the infringment, if netapp can get the equipment back, they can save themselves (and hence their customers, remember that in the end the customers pay for everything) a bunch of money. <scw>
On Wed, Jul 20, 2005 at 09:32:11AM -0700, Jeff Mohler wrote:
I think the jist is..dont infringe on Netapps legal rights/etc, and they wont have to take it away from you.
On 7/20/05 2:31 AM, "Tom Yates" madlists@teaparty.net wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005, Tom Yates wrote:
has anyone else noticed this in the purchase agreement? does it worry anyone? what's the big idea?
thanks to those who replied. prevailing wisdom seems to be that IP-indemnification clauses are now quite common, and certainly sought-after by purchasing departments, possibly as a result of the whole SCO bunfight. whether or not it makes any sense, or helps, or indeed whether the cure might be worse than the disease, seems not often to be addressed!
Well..at least I had the "lawyers & money" part straight in my head.
:)
On 7/20/05 10:03 AM, "Stephen C Woods" scw@seas.ucla.edu wrote:
Uhmmmmmm I think that isn't the issue. I'd say that the issue is: If someone sues NETAPP over some infringment that NATAPP did, and wins netapp can by back the infringing machine from you and not have to pay some really inflated royality -if netapp has something in the field, the owner of the infringed upon item can pretty much chareg the moon for the infringment, if netapp can get the equipment back, they can save themselves (and hence their customers, remember that in the end the customers pay for everything) a bunch of money.
<scw>
On Wed, Jul 20, 2005 at 09:32:11AM -0700, Jeff Mohler wrote:
I think the jist is..dont infringe on Netapps legal rights/etc, and they wont have to take it away from you.
On 7/20/05 2:31 AM, "Tom Yates" madlists@teaparty.net wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005, Tom Yates wrote:
has anyone else noticed this in the purchase agreement? does it worry anyone? what's the big idea?
thanks to those who replied. prevailing wisdom seems to be that IP-indemnification clauses are now quite common, and certainly sought-after by purchasing departments, possibly as a result of the whole SCO bunfight. whether or not it makes any sense, or helps, or indeed whether the cure might be worse than the disease, seems not often to be addressed!
-
Jeff Mohler -
Stephen C Woods -
Tom Yates