[9fans] license section 4

[9fans] license section 4

[Sam]

What's the background on the example for
section 4?  To me, it reads that if a
contributor makes claim A, distributor
reiterates claim A, and for some strange
reason a lawsuit is filed against said
contributor because of that claim, the
distributor (which of possibly many?)
is liable for incurring the expense of
litigation and damages resulting from
that claim.

While I understand the notion that if
there are no claims, the distributor
is responsible for defending the veracity
of any claims *it* makes, (as section 5 and
unfitness for any particular purpose
would indicate), I can't see why this
is worth stating outright.

Is this patent violation related?

Cheers,

Sam

Re: [9fans] license section 4

[David Presotto]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 316 bytes --]

You read incorrectly.  If the contributor made the claim then the
action isn't ``caused by the acts or omissions of such Commercial
Distributor''.

It is a definite problem with English sentences that sometimes
all the words and clauses are indeed important.  This is often
especially true of legal statements.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 2093 bytes --]

From: Sam <sah@softcardsystems.com>
To: <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: [9fans] license section 4
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 14:56:08 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0306171445160.5692-100000@athena>

What's the background on the example for
section 4?  To me, it reads that if a
contributor makes claim A, distributor
reiterates claim A, and for some strange
reason a lawsuit is filed against said
contributor because of that claim, the
distributor (which of possibly many?)
is liable for incurring the expense of
litigation and damages resulting from
that claim.

While I understand the notion that if
there are no claims, the distributor
is responsible for defending the veracity
of any claims *it* makes, (as section 5 and
unfitness for any particular purpose
would indicate), I can't see why this
is worth stating outright.

Is this patent violation related?

Cheers,

Sam