Intellectual Property Law
New Matter WINTER 2015, Volume 40, Number 4
Content
- 2016 New Matter Author Submission Guidelines
- Case Comments
- Contents
- Digital Legacies: Who Owns Your Online Life After Death?
- Dmca's § 512(f) Remains Toothless in Light of Lenz Decision
- Intellectual Property Section Executive Committee 2015-2016
- Intellectual Property Section Interest Group Representatives 2015-2016
- International Ip Developments
- Letter from the Chair
- Letter from the Editor-in-Chief
- Licensing Interest Group
- MCLE Self-Study Article
- Open Licensing: Good for the Community, Good for Business
- Patent Interest Group
- Software Copyright and Innovation after Oracle v. Google
- The State Bar of California Intellectual Property Alumni
- Trade Secrets Interest Group
- Trademark Interest Group
- Ttab Decisions and Developments
- The Licensing Corner
The Licensing Corner
JAMES C. ROBERTS III
Global Capital Law Group PC
IP ISSUES THAT KEEP STARTUP LAWYERS UP AT NIGHT
It is axiomatic that license agreements are supposed to memorialize who is granting to whom what rights in what "stuff," for what period and territory and for what purposes. ("Stuff" is a technical term.) Simple enough.
Well, not so fast. Technology attorneys are often approached by startup teams asking for help in IP transactions that have already happened, frequently without IP counsel involvement or even documentation. There are enough real-world examples of some part of this nexus collapsing under even cursory examination that it is worth a closer look at a few of the links in that causal chain.