[NTLUG:Discuss] IP idemnification - a concern?

[Fred James]

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."