[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: license jurisdiction related to pricing

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

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