Don Cavaiani wrote:
The reason for the clause is to protect the intellectual property of
Infor and to keep it from being moved to locations which are not
licensed for the software.
Don, I think they blew it with this reasoning. I would think any normal
person would agree that since the licensed company remains the same,
there is not any chance for Infor to lose the protection of their
intellectual property. In fact, I'd challenge them to state how their
IP is not protected by the relocation of the machine.
It's highly disappointing that Infor wants to play games like this. I'd
suggest contacting IT Jungle, they've reported on Infor's licensing
activity before. Reference this article:
. Just make sure
there are no non-disclosure agreements about licensing details.
I also think it's time you punted this problem up the ladder. If you
don't have lawyers on staff, it may be time to have your company consult
one. If you don't have one on staff, it may only cost a couple of
hundred bucks to have one review the contract and develop a response if
he/she feels there's no merit to Infor's argument.
> If not, we will have to discuss what the required resolution is to
> get the license back into compliance.
Or, you could offer them a thousand bucks to go away -and ammend the
wording on the contract- and see if they bite. They'll likely laugh,
but you never know.