tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923005810906159036.post1383407451467624848..comments2024-03-27T12:49:05.975+00:00Comments on IP finance: What Exactly Is a "Pass Through" Licence?Anne Fairpohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02579190868405783459noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923005810906159036.post-59871673501919888392009-08-05T09:02:18.964+01:002009-08-05T09:02:18.964+01:00Dear Anonymous,
Thanks for the thoughtful comment...Dear Anonymous,<br /><br />Thanks for the thoughtful comments. Maybe we can continue this discussion off-line for the moment (neilwilk@inter.net.il).Neil Wilkofnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923005810906159036.post-84264706168339059532009-08-03T12:57:04.236+01:002009-08-03T12:57:04.236+01:00I am not familiar with the software industry and h...I am not familiar with the software industry and have never seen such pass-through licenses before, so the following is just licensing guess...for fun.<br /><br />Also, I am not sure to understand who is the licensor party to the pass-through license with the end-user, i.e. from which party does the end-user receive its license (developer or middleman) ?<br /><br />If that party is the middleman, then it is probably a right to sublicense that is granted by the developer to the middleman.<br /><br />However, I seem to understand that it might not be the case, and that the party to the pass-through license with the end-user is the developer. In such a case, it seems that the right granted to the middleman might then be a mere right to act as a representative of the developer in licenses that are in fact "executed"<br />between the developer and the end-user. Contrary to the apparent meaning of the wording "pass-through license", there would then be no IP rights effectively licensed to the middleman, but only a right to sell products containing a license between the developer and the end-user.<br /><br />If the situation is different, then it would maybe be useful to clarify it first in order to (maybe) get more meaningful comments.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923005810906159036.post-24996082788326016712009-07-28T09:30:32.371+01:002009-07-28T09:30:32.371+01:00Just a quick note to say that several open license...Just a quick note to say that several open licenses (such as Creative Commons or the Open Database License) don't have sublicenses (they are direct) while others explicitly structure the relationships as sublicenses.Jordan Hatcherhttp://www.jordanhatcher.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923005810906159036.post-63735044928228665572009-07-24T11:23:14.465+01:002009-07-24T11:23:14.465+01:00What it is depends on the wording of the head lice...What it is depends on the wording of the head licence agreement. Unfortunately that wording is not always clear. The two obvious routes are: (1) a sublicence, or (2) a direct licence from IP owner to end-user, with the head licensee acting as the IP owner's agent to enter into the licence. I suppose, if necessary, other legal principles might be brought in, eg estoppel.<br /><br />I am not sure why you say that one cannot grant a third party a right that has not previously been granted by the original grantor. If I grant you the right to license someone else on defined terms, I am "previously" granting you a right that you can then pass on. Surely it is irrelevant that I am separately granting you your own rights with respect to the software.<br /><br />Sometimes, these licences are not well-explained in software agreements. This may be something to do with the commercial pressures in the software sector and limited patience for "legal details".Mark Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14407839707461689152noreply@blogger.com