Big News: FounderDating is joining OneVest to build the largest community for entrepreneurs. Details here
Latest Notifications
You have no recent recommendations.
Name
Title
 
MiniBio
FOLLOW
Title
 Followers
FOLLOW TOPIC

Question goes here

1,300 Followers

  • Name
    Entrepreneur
  • Name
    Entrepreneur
  • Name
    Entrepreneur
  • Name
    Entrepreneur
  • Name
    Entrepreneur
  • Name
    Entrepreneur
  • Name
    Entrepreneur
  • Name
    Entrepreneur

Accepting unlimited liability for copyright and patent infringement for enterprise software?

Our company sells enterprise software. Our standard indemnification clause states that we will cover patent and copyright infringement issues up to an amount equal to the last 12 months of fees paid. All of our "bigger fish" type prospects insist on unlimited protection. I find that most customers will agree (after a lot of complaining!) to settle on a 2x or 3x liability cap (against yearly revenues paid).

However, I have one particular client currently insisting that we need to provide them a non-capped indemnity.

How many of you CEOs that run enterprise software companies regularly accept the request for unlimited liability for indemnifying against copyright and patent infringement?

thanks,

11 Replies

Gordon Troy
3
0
Gordon Troy Entrepreneur
Trademark Attorney - United States and International, Copyrights, Unfair Competition, Internet and Computer law.
When representing the software developer we try and limit the indemnification much like you have indicated. When representing the software customer we like to have unlimited indemnification for patent and copyright (actually all IP) infringements because in reality the software company is in the best position to defend such a situation and is in the best position to know and control. That said, looking beyond just the indemnification there are a number of "tricks" that can be employed around the risk to minimize the risk for the software company, including having the opportunity to substitute non-infringing code and/or terminate the license, among other things. Looking at the indemnification provision only is not sufficient in trying to come up with an appropriate balance of risks that is acceptable to both parties.
Additional considerations need to be made as to what the software does, is capable of modification, etc. as that can also lead to infringement of third party IP rights, particularly if the software is being used in an unintended way.
I would be more than happy to look at the particular situation that you have, as well as delving into the full EULA to see what else could be done to make this less of a negotiation in future transactions.
Neil Gordon
0
0
Neil Gordon Advisor
Board Member, Corporate Finance Advisor and Strategy Consultant
There is this pesky notion that customers have, which is that they shouldn't be responsible for damages caused by a vendor under conditions and circumstances that they can't control. Consider your own risk management policies, and especially whether you sufficiently manage your risks such that you can simply accept the risk.* You'd be a lot more customer friendly that way.

*I do though agree with the previous comment about unintended or improper use.
Sami Ahvenniemi
0
0
Sami Ahvenniemi Entrepreneur
Member of the Board, Business Developer at Kontena
If you have truly taken the negotiation to its limit, the last frontier typically is to propose a very high cap, which is still better than no cap at all. Oftentimes 12 month trailing x2 or x3 is still fairly low in subscription based businesses and putting in an explicit f ex $3m cap resonates better w the prospect. I've couple times managed to get a cap in in such situation by literally walking away after which the prospect came back and agreed to our last proposed cap. As Gordon indicated lot of the other mechanisms naturally help you limit the exposure and one thing you really need in there is your right to force them to upgrade to a non-infringing latest version immediately when you have it available. Happy closings!
Paul Garcia
0
0
Paul Garcia Advisor
President at TABLE
The only person you should listen to is your own attorney. This is a legal question, and no one (not even the attorney in this discussion) can give you legal advice. The attorney in this discussion can only give you information on the questions to ask and where to look for information around your question. Or he can tell you what other people have done. Regardless, you need your own attorney to answer the question, because that's the only opinion that will matter when it comes to a potential future lawsuit.
Jim Zucker
0
0
Jim Zucker Entrepreneur • Advisor
Co-Founder & CTO at FundPaaS
It is a standard practice to give these protections to a client, usually there are some restrictions they client must also follow such as not re-distributing and other obligation you are required to pass on to them based on the license you received the software under.
Brian Reale
0
0
Brian Reale Entrepreneur
CEO / Founder ProcessMaker
Thanks to everyone for the comments! Very helpful.
Joseph Wang
0
0
Joseph Wang Entrepreneur
Chief Science Officer at Bitquant Research Laboratories
It's pretty common and oddly enough they are using you as a sacrificial lamb, which may not be a bad thing.

There are companies and lawyers that make huge amounts of money suing big companies for patent infringement (copyright infringement tends to be hard to sue for). Since the patent trolls know that the company has a large amount of money, they do this with the expectation that the company will settle, and they get their huge paycheck.

One weird thing is that they don't like to sue small companies, because they realize that small companies don't have deep pockets, so if the small company gets sued then they small company would go out of business, and the patent troll gets nothing. So one strategy is to have a small company accept unlimited liability which then means that no one wants to sue the small company because it means that the small company will go out of business and the patent troll gets nothing.

One thing that you have to consider is how large your liabilities against patent trolls are. You are at increased risk if you have deep pockets or are in certain patent heavy areas (video codecs). Also consider how likely it is that a patent lawsuit that is directed at you will be directed at other similar businesses.

If it turns out that this is a really big issue, you can talk to a lawyer by setting up a corporate structure with firewalls. Essentially the way that this works is to have a subsidiary that accepts liability for the software, but if they get sued, they go out of business, but the rest of the company survives.

Copyright and trademark infringement are less of a worry, because you can control that. It's rather hard to infringe on a copyright or trademark without someone in the company knowing that they are infringing. Patent infringement is hard, because any non-trivial piece of software will almost certainly infringe on some piece of software somewhere.

Brian Reale
0
0
Brian Reale Entrepreneur
CEO / Founder ProcessMaker
Joseph,

Really thoughtful answer - I really appreciate it. I agree with your thoughts (unfortunately - I have had very first hand experiences!).

I haven't thought about the firewall issue in a while - interesting...
Joe Valof
0
0
Joe Valof Entrepreneur
Independent General Counsel [IGC]
Brian, I'm a littler late, but let me try to put this critical issue in perspective. I deal withthis issue daily as an in house counsel workingonboth sides of the table, either for thelicensoror forthe licensee.First, thereshould be2 separate indemnification clauses, 1 is a general clause between the 2 contracting parties, and that oneis subject to the limitation of liability clause which is generallyequal to the amount paid to the licensor over a12 month [or more] period Theother indemnification clause generally relates to infringement, which is a third party lawsuit. This one isunlimitedas the party who's IP hasbeen infringed is not apartyto the agreement and not subject to any dollar limitation clauses. Ifthat partyis successful in thelawsuit and the judge/jury says you owe 3M you must pay thethird party for their damages caused by you, assumingyour clientwas not the cause of the infringement. Your customershould be held completely harmless.Hope this is clear and helpful.
Brian Reale
0
0
Brian Reale Entrepreneur
CEO / Founder ProcessMaker
Joe - very helpful indeed. Thanks. Great to have perspective from someone sitting on both sides of the table.

thanks,
Join FounderDating to participate in the discussion
Nothing gets posted to LinkedIn and your information will not be shared.

Just a few more details please.

DO: Start a discussion, share a resource, or ask a question related to entrepreneurship.
DON'T: Post about prohibited topics such as recruiting, cofounder wanted, check out my product
or feedback on the FD site (you can send this to us directly info@founderdating.com).
See the Community Code of Conduct for more details.

Title

Give your question or discussion topic a great title, make it catchy and succinct.

Details

Make sure what you're about to say is specific and relevant - you'll get better responses.

Topics

Tag your discussion so you get more relevant responses.

Question goes here

1,300 Followers

  • Name
    Details
  • Name
    Details
  • Name
    Details
  • Name
    Details
  • Name
    Details
  • Name
    Details
  • Name
    Details
  • Name
    Details
Know someone who should answer this question? Enter their email below
Stay current and follow these discussion topics?