Sunday, May 07, 2017 9:35:51 AM
1. It was not a material agreement.
2. It was a covenant not to sue agreement.
3. It was not a royalty-bearing agreement.
4. The contract prohibited any sale of the patents to pay back YA.
5. It appeared to limit YA's ability to exercise their assignment rights on the patent. It is a possibility that YA released those rights in the Exhibit. If not, the clause would have be unenforceable under the security agreements.
6. Microsoft could not sub-license these rights so they were not a reseller.
7. There was only two payment (the amount set forth...)
9. NeoMedia made no claims on the scope of the patents. This is typical of a CNTS agreement and why NeoMedia likes them so much.
10. The agreement not to sue covers Microsoft and its affiliates which seems to be a whole bunch of companies. Affiliates are not limited to what was likely listed the Exhibits. Anyone who later becomes an affiliate was released from suit by NeoMedia.
http://www.microsoftstore.com/store/msstore/html/pbPage.Help_Site_Affiliate_Program
“It ain’t so much the things we don’t know that get us into trouble. It’s the things we know that just ain’t so.” Henry Wheeler Shaw
FEATURED DaBaby and Stunna 4 Vegas's "NO DRIBBLE" Joins Music Licensing, Inc.'s Portfolio • Jun 7, 2024 10:15 AM
Mushrooms Inc. (OTC: MSRM) Announces Significant Share Buy Back by the Board Director and New Strategic Initiatives. • MSRM • Jun 5, 2024 1:32 PM
Hydromer Announces Launch of HydroThrombX Medical Device Coating Technology • HYDI • Jun 5, 2024 10:24 AM
Dr. Michael Dent Finances $1 Million to Drive HealthLynked's Healthcare Transformation • HLYK • Jun 5, 2024 8:00 AM
Avant Technologies Enters Binding LOI to Purchase Dozens of High-Performance, Immersible, AI-Powered Servers • AVAI • Jun 5, 2024 8:00 AM
IQST - iQSTEL Announces $290 Million 2024 Annual Revenue Forecast • IQST • Jun 4, 2024 1:43 PM