Re: Proteome BioKnowledge Library License

[David Goodman <dgoodman@Princeton.EDU>]

Phil, my university has signed. Considering that the fees are set forth in
a fixed schedule, I do not think this clause significant in practice.

In the past, they have provided this database free to academic
institutions, and charged only commercial users for whom provisions like
that are not unusual. Now they are selling it to us, which the researchers
here consider quite unreasonable, as it is they (and their academic
colleagues elsewhere) who have both done the work to obtain the data, and
also purchased Incyte's reagents with which to do the work. Many aspects
of the license, as Phil notes, show similar irrelevant traces of their
previous customer base. They will learn, I hope.

For some commercial publishers, the contracts specify that we may never
disclose the exact terms we have paid. I think it's all nonsense. The
terms are quite standard in almost all cases. The only purpose I can
personally see is to permit the customers to think they are all getting a
special deal.  What's more, the sales overhead on all this
pseudo-customization is part of the cost that we have to pay.

-- David


Phil Davis wrote:

> Dear Liblicense,
>
> Has anyone signed the license Incyte's Proteome database?  While there are
> some of the usual suspects in the license (governing law, legal fees,
> indemnity), the clause that gives me the biggest willies is this one:
>
> 8.1 Institution agrees that the Fees set forth in this Agreement shall be
> considered confidential information and safeguarded hereunder by
> Institution for a period of three (3) years from the Effective Date.
>
> Has anyone struck out gag clauses like this?
>
> Thanks for any advice,
> --Phil
>
> Philip Davis, Life Sciences Bibliographer
> pmd8@cornell.edu