Re: License problem with American Geophysical Union

["John Cox" <John.E.Cox@btinternet.com>]

If the jurisdiction is not spelt out, and a dispute arises over the
agreement, then there is a preliminary round of litigation to decide where
the case is to be heard, and under what jurisdictional rules the agreement
is to be interpreted.  This will double the cost of litigation, and also
lead to ambiguity of interpretation.  Recommending that jurisdiction
clauses be deleted without explaining the consequences - which are highly
technical/legal - is to do a disservice to those being "advised".

It may sound trivial, but it isn't.

John Cox

John Cox
Managing Director
John Cox Associates Ltd.
Rookwood, Bradden
TOWCESTER, Northants NN12 8ED
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 (0) 1327 860949
Fax: +44 (0) 1327 861184
E-mail: John.E.Cox@btinternet.com

----- Original Message -----
From: "Anthony Watkinson" <anthony.watkinson@btopenworld.com>
To: <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
Sent: 15 September 2003 5:58 am
Subject: Re: License problem with American Geophysical Union

> I am interested to know from Mr Williams if he can accept licenses which
> are silent on both the place of litigation and the law under which the
> agreement is operating. Silence is the approach I have always advocated
> (when asked as a consultant) and I would be sorry to find out that it did
> not work.