Re: license jurisdiction related to pricing

[Tom Williams <twilliam@bbl.usouthal.edu>]

I assume you're talking about legal jurisdiction.  For us it's a
no-brainer.  As a state institution we are required to change the wording
in any license to Alabama as opposed to whatever jurisdiction the vendor
has in the license.  This is state law as I understand it.  We've never
had a situation where the vendor refused to change the jurisdiction.  If
they ever were to refuse, we would not purchase the product - PERIOD!

Any librarian who signs off on a contract leaving jurisdiction out of
state, without getting consent of their institution, may be putting their
necks on the chopping block.  Sure, it's highly unlikely that a suit of
any sort would ever materialize.  However, if one ever did CHOP!

-- 
Thomas L. Williams, AHIP
Director, Biomedical Libraries and
 Media Production Services
University of South Alabama
College of Medicine
Mobile, Al 36688-0002
tel. (251)460-6885
fax. (251)460-7638
twilliam@bbl.usouthal.edu

On Sun, 23 Jun 2002, David Goodman wrote:

> Ann, this is in my opinion, not a very good idea.  Remarkably, and as we
> all know, it's the first time you ever had a thought on licensing that was
> even slightly questionable!.
>
> The place of jurisdiction is a license provision extremely unlikely to
> have practical significance. It's of significance in the contract, because
> its a major nuisance factor.  It's become a major nuisance factor because
> of the legal requirements affecting public institutions in the US, and
> becaused of their total inability to alter them, as they're generally part
> of their states' legislation.
>
> At an institution not having such problem, I doubt that anyone would care
> very much about the jurisdiction (speaking personally and only for
> myself--assume me to be totally ignorant of what my own institution thinks
> on the matter officially).
>
> It is extraordinarily unlikely that we would ever actually be in court
> about a licensing dispute, or even be threatened with the situation.
> Assuming we were all to lose our minds and outrageously and officially to
> violate copyright, or fail to follow up violations, the supplier might
> cancel the contract, but I can't see our attorneys willing to fight the
> case. If a supplier were to unreasonably fail to provide material, or not
> meet a service quality agreement, we would expect to negotiate the
> appropriate adjustments. If a supplier were to refuse to make them, or be
> otherwise totally irrespnsible, we wouldn't renew. If the supplier was
> performing so poorly, I can't see that it would be worth it to seek
> monetary damages, or practical to attempt to compel specific
> performance--everyone else would be cancelling also.
>
> I think pricing should be on the basis of the service provided, either by
> material supplied or population served (a totally general statement
> leaving plenty of room for argument). It should't be based upon the
> possible occurence of unlikely or irrelevant events, nor should it
> penalize institutions that must subscribe to legally required terms, or
> reward publishers who make them do so.
>
> David Goodman
> dgoodman@princeton.edu            609-258-7785