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.


As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...


Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2022 by and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.