[News] Serious allegations about H&P | ANN.lu |
Posted on 08-Nov-2001 14:17 GMT by Christian Kemp | 164 comments View flat View list |
Amigo follows up on serious allegations about H&P and says: "I also just asked Unisys as it says here, and am waiting for a reply. If true, H&P could probably be forced to close."
[ If H&P indeed didn't pay royalties for Unisys' GIF algorithm, they might not be forced to close per se, but if this is indeed true, and Unisys decides to sue, they might have to pay some serious fines. Also note that while this is not in unmoderated, it's highly speculative, unconfirmed and generally should be taken with the usual grain of salt - CK ]
|
|
List of all comments to this article |
Serious allegations about H&P : Comment 89 of 164 | ANN.lu |
Posted by Emmanuel Lesueur on 09-Nov-2001 17:52 GMT | In reply to Comment 64 (Ben Hermans/Hyperion): Ben Hermans writes:
> > - the license is transferable to H&P thus they must pay the license
> > fee for >every "OS" 3.9 unit sold
>
> Not necessarily.
>
> First of all, this presupposes that the contract with Wiles imposes a
> per unit royalty on H&P and not a "lump sum" payment (which I believe
> was the case).
Who cares. Wiles had a contract with per unit fee with NSDi. *If*
he happened to have the right to transmit this contract to someone
else (which he doesn't), there is no way *he* can decide that
the contract terms change in the process.
> You could license a piece of software and say "if you pay me 15K, you
> will get a license". Nothing forces you to negotiate or demand a per
> copy royalty or indeed prevents you from granting a royalty-free
> license (which makes little sense in a commercial context, granted.)
But the only one who can decide that is the copyright holder.
> x grants rights to y
>
> y grants rights to z
> legally does not create a contractual relationship between x and z.
>
> Z can't sue x and vice versa ON THE BASIS OF THE CONTRACT because
> they are not a party to the respective agreement.
That's not the situation.
x grants distribution right to y
y grants rights to z illegaly.
Then x can sue z for illegal distribution of his product, and z can
turn back against y. x can sue y too.
A court can decide that z acted on good faith and thus is not guilty,
but no matter what it decides, z still has no right to distribute the
product and has to stop doing so. z can especially not decide of a new
distribution of the product one year after he has known he has no
rights. There is no way this distribution is done in good faith. |
|
List of all comments to this article (continued) |
|
- User Menu
-
- About ANN archives
- The ANN archives is powered by #AmigaZeux. It was updated daily (news last: 22-Oct-2004; comments last: 18-May-2005).
ANN.lu was created, previously owned and maintained by Christian Kemp, www.ckemp.com.
- Contribute
- Not possible at this time!
- Search ANN archives
- Advanced search
- Hosting
- ANN.lu was hosted by Dreamhost. Sign up through this link, mention "ckemp" as referrer and he will get a 10% commission on any account you purchase.
Please show your appreciation for any past, present and future work on ANN.lu by making a contribution via PayPal.
|