-8-
We read the license agreement to provide specifically that
Nordic was licensing the Software to Vision and that Vision could
sublicense the Software to FoxVideo. The agreement, for example,
granted Vision “an exclusive perpetual worldwide license” to use
the Software and allowed Vision to sublicense the Software to
FoxVideo for its use. The agreement also stated that the license
to Vision “is not a sale”, that “Except as otherwise provided
herein, title and all proprietary rights (patents, trade secrets,
copyrights and trade marks) to the Software, and any copy made by
Vision are held by Nordic”, and that the “Software is copyrighted
and is protected by United States and International Copyright
Laws.” Petitioner makes no mention of these quoted statements,
or the fact that the parties to the license agreement went to
great lengths to include them within that agreement. Nor does
petitioner explain how Vision could have sold the Software to
FoxVideo when the Software was not owned, but merely licensed, by
Vision. Indeed, petitioner does not even rebut the fact that
Nordic licensed the Software to Vision and specifically
acknowledges this fact when petitioner states that the license
agreement resulted in Vision’s having a license to use the
Software.
We also read the Vision agreement to provide similarly that
Vision licensed and did not sell the Software to FoxVideo. This
agreement states that Vision sublicensed the Software to FoxVideo
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011