| |||||||||||||
Patent indemnification, are you kidding?Patent indemnification, are you kidding?Posted Mar 3, 2010 14:35 UTC (Wed) by Cato (subscriber, #7643)In reply to: Patent indemnification, are you kidding? by mjr Parent article: Apple's patent attack
Actually patent indemnification is a common clause in software contracts - here's one example: http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:3Nifq5Hprs8J:www.cou... (section 56)
There are many other examples - basically software customers don't want to have to defend a patent lawsuit for a software product they bought, so vendors are often willing to include this.
(Log in to post comments)
Patent indemnification, are you kidding? Posted Mar 6, 2010 1:06 UTC (Sat) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] The easiest way to understand why indemnification does in fact exist is to remember that a deal is a two-way street. If no company in its right mind would indemnify another because it doesn't want to take the risk of a patent infringement, then no company in its right mind would take stuff without indemnification, for the same reason.But technology does change hands, so one side or the other is taking the risk. Now, when it comes to choosing which side it should be, I think it makes sense in the general case that the supplier of the technology should take the risk, as he probably is in the better position of the two to avoid infringements and know if there are any.
|
|||||||||||||