Interesting Microsoft license clause re open source

[Lou Grinzo]

I don't doubt what you're saying--it's just the standard cost/benefit
tradeoff we all face about a million times a day, in one form or another.

My point is that MS has enough money and lawyers that they surely made this
particular tradeoff in exactly this way, and I'm curious as to why they did
it.  Put another way, does anyone really think that the extra cost (in
either money or time) to make the license extremely clear would have been so
much as a trivial burden to MS?  I don't.







-----Original Message-----
From: Ravicher, Daniel B. [mailto:DRavicher at brobeck.com]
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2001 4:54 PM
To: 'Lou Grinzo'; 'John Cowan'
Cc: license-discuss at opensource.org
Subject: RE: Interesting Microsoft license clause re open source


> -----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