Interesting Microsoft license clause re open source

[Ravicher, Daniel B.]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lou Grinzo [mailto:lgrinzo at stny.rr.com]
> 
> But the more important issues, I think, is what's up with MS 
> and this "in
> conjunction with" phrasing.  I can't believe that MS's 
> lawyers don't realize
> how vague that statement is, which makes it sound suspiciously like an
> attempt to intimidate people--i.e. "steer a wide path around 
> anything that
> even hints at open or free software, or we'll darken the sky 
> with lawyers."

In drafting contracts, there are two countervailing considerations: (a)
spend the time and money now to hammer out every detail to set in stone the
relationship with a corresponding reduction in the risk of incurring
litigation costs in the future, vs. (b) use "fuzzy" language that saves time
and money now with a corresponding greater likelihood of having to spend
time and money later to litigate the details.

You are right that broader language increases potential litigation risk to
those who accept it, but this risk is nothing but another cost that may/
should be considered when deciding whether to enter into the license.  

=======================================================
This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.

To reply to our email administrator directly, send an email to postmaster at brobeck.com
BROBECK PHLEGER & HARRISON LLP
http://www.brobeck.com