Author Archives: Mark Anderson

About Mark Anderson

I am an English solicitor (attorney) who qualified originally as a barrister in 1983. After working as an in-house lawyer and with Bristows in London, I formed Anderson & Company in 1994. Our offices are based in Oxfordshire, on the banks of the River Thames, 50 miles west of London. Outside work, I enjoy walking and canoeing. I met my wife Sara whilst cycling from Land's End to John O'Groats (1,100 miles) in 1991.

Software licensing: it ain’t necessarily so…

porgyIt ain’t necessarily so
The t’ings dat yo’ li’ble
To read in de Bible,
It ain’t necessarily so.*

The theme of today’s sermon is the commercial supply of software, and the contracts that are used for such supply.
Typically, such contracts provide for a licence to use the licensor’s intellectual property. As a result, software licensing is commonly thought of as a type of IP or technology licence. However, in IP Draughts’ view, there are flaws in this approach. Many software supply agreements are closer, conceptually, to a sale of goods than to an IP licence.
In many technology licence agreements, the licence grant is at the heart of the agreement, often placed “front and centre” in clause 2. Much thought is given to defining the intellectual property that is to be licensed, the types of licensed product that may be made and sold under the licence, and any field and territory restrictions.
By contrast, the software licence agreement will often not get into the question of what IP is being licensed. This omission would be extraordinary in most technology licensing, but in software licensing it is regarded as normal – the customer doesn’t care what IP is being licensed, as long as it won’t be blocked off from using the software in accordance with the terms permitted by the agreement. This is because what the customer is really buying is a product; the IP licence is secondary.
Supply of product
In many commercial software supply agreements, the heart of the agreement is the supply of a product, and associated terms, including specification, warranties, delivery, acceptance, and ongoing support. The agreement will usually include licence terms, but they tend to be ancillary to the main commercial provisions. Because software is an electronic product, which can be reproduced virtually without additional cost, a supplier will usually wish to place limits on the use that can be made of the software. The price charged for the software may be based on the extent of use that the customer is permitted to have under the contract. A convenient contractual mechanism for setting these limits is to grant a limited IP licence.
A distinction should be made between supply of software to an end user (under an end-user licence) and supply of software to a business that will distribute copies of the software, or incorporate it into another product for supply to an end user. The recipient under either type of agreement will typically be permitted to use the software under written licence terms which set limits on the permitted use.

Implied and express terms

The use of a licence mechanism in software supply is understandable, for several reasons. It provides a way of limiting the use that the customer can make of the software, which enables the supplier to maintain some control over reproduction of the software and to establish robust pricing models. Perhaps it points the courts away from the idea that software should be treated as the sale of goods, which might have unfortunate consequences for the supplier, including:
  1. The application of laws on “exhaustion of rights” and “non-derogation from grant” – but over time these areas of law are encroaching on software supply – eg see the UsedSoft case.
  2. The incorporation of implied warranties into the contract, eg in the UK warranties of title and quiet enjoyment under the Sale of Goods Act 1979.  Similar warranties can be found in some other jurisdictions, eg countries that have incorporated the UN Convention on the International Sale of Goods into their national law.

As previously mentioned on this blog (see last link above), the implied warranty of quiet enjoyment has been held to have been breached if a purchase of goods is sued by a third party for IP infringement. It might be argued that industry practice deals with this issue explicitly, so that it is not necessary to get into academic discussions about whether software is goods for the purposes of sale of goods legislation. The issue is dealt with explicitly in software licence agreements that include (as many do) either a warranty of non-infringement of third party IP, and/or an indemnity against liability arising from such infringement.

The practice of including such warranties and indemnities is much less commonly encountered in technology licensing, particularly in the case of early-stage technology licensing. This contrasting practice reflects, in IP Draughts’ view, the reality that software supply is very close to a supply of goods and not very close to a licence of technology.


Competition law

A little over ten years ago, there was much fanfare over the inclusion of software copyright licensing in the 2004 EU Technology Transfer Block Exemption Regulation. Previous versions of the regulation (they tend to be replaced and updated every 10 years or so) had focussed only on patent and know-how licensing.  Ten years later, the European Commission has had second thoughts, and the 2014 version of the regulation, and associated guidelines, clarify that most software licensing should be considered under the block exemption regulation for distribution of goods. Rhetorical question: could this be because software supply is much closer to the sale of goods than it is to technology licensing?


Convenience of lawyers?

A possible reason why software supply is thought of as an IP transaction lies in the organisation of law firms. Complex, technology-related contracts are often dealt with by a specialist department of the law firm, sometimes called an IP and IT department, or a TMT department, or similar.

IP Draughts' father bought one of these in 1979, and IP Draughts programmed it to perform invoicing and payroll functions.

IP Draughts’ father bought one of these in 1979, but applications software wasn’t available. IP Draughts programmed it to perform invoicing and payroll functions, saving the programs onto cassette tapes.

Software supply agreements have only been around since the 1980s, and when they first appeared it was understandable that lawyers and their clients struggled to fit the facts of software supply into a conventional commercial law category. Established law and practice in relation to the sale of goods didn’t quite fit the new technologies. 30 years on, we should be more confident about treating commercial software supply as a variant on the sale of goods.


*Written by Ira Gershwin, from Porgy & Bess


Filed under Licensing

A book you can keep under your hat

Untitled-1Nestling in IP Draughts’ inbox this morning was an email from Law Society Publishing, inviting him to purchase the recently published, third edition, of a book, Drafting Confidentiality Agreements. Written by some lawyers called Anderson and Warner, apparently.

It is a small book, so it may fit under your hat, or in your loved one’s Christmas stocking.

Details here.

Leave a comment

Filed under &Law Updates, Confidentiality

A common name for common lawyers?

andlaw-logo1One of the downsides of our firm having a very common name – Anderson – is the possibility of being confused with others. A year or two back, this caused us problems with the Solicitors Regulation Authority, which seemed to think we were a High Street firm from Liverpool that was in dispute with a local taxi driver. They insisted on knowing what our defence was to various allegations of regulatory misconduct. We had to work quite hard before the SRA eventually accepted that they had the wrong firm.

Having recently adopted a new logo, we hope it is clear that we are not the following firms:

anderson1This fourth-dimensional firm from Minnesota.


anderson2 This firm from Michegan, which sounds rather ruff!




anderson3This firm from Montana, which seems to have a rather varied practice.


anderson4This firm from Massachusetts, which asks a very pertinent question.




anderson5This firm from Canada, which employs a small town lawyer providing small town service in a …small town.





anderson6This firm from Australia, which employs real people!


anderson7This faceless (but Scotland-loving?) firm, Anderson Browne, from England (“next to McDonalds”), which seems to let their clients take the lead.





anderson13Well, it’s a start…


anderson12Perhaps too far in the other direction?





1 Comment

Filed under &Law Updates

Calling in-house lawyers and tech transfer managers

worldYesterday, IP Draughts gave a day’s training in Northern Ireland, to an in-house team at a life sciences company. Thanks to everyone in the company for being so welcoming and for making the day’s discussion interesting.

While he was there, he received confirmation of a trip to Oslo in December, to give essentially the same one-day talk, Advanced Intellectual Property Licensing. The talk will be hosted by the Norwegian Intellectual Property Office. IP Draughts has previously run training for the European Patent Office and the UK Intellectual Property Office.

In January, IP Draughts will be travelling to New Zealand with his mother to visit some relatives. In the middle of the trip he is planning to visit Australia. He is hoping to fit in some paid training while he is there. However, discussions with potentially interested parties have not yet crystallised into a booking, and final plans for the trip are now being made. If you know of anyone who might be interested in hosting a day’s course on international IP licensing, or other IP-related or transactional topics (eg R&D agreements, clinical trial agreements, drafting contracts generally) please let Mark know. The host might be a company, a law firm, a government body (eg a Patent Office) or a university. Courses could be designed for lawyers, for commercial or TT managers or administrators. Likely dates would be between 29 January and 3 February 2015.

So far, and including the forthcoming talk in Oslo, IP Draughts has run professional training on IP and commercial transactions in:

  • Austria
  • Belgium
  • Denmark
  • England
  • France
  • Germany
  • Greece
  • Hungary
  • Italy
  • Netherlands
  • Nigeria
  • Northern Ireland
  • Norway
  • Republic of Ireland
  • Scotland
  • Spain
  • United States
  • Wales

If you are interested in having IP Draughts run an in-house training course in the UK or elsewhere, please get in touch. Some of the topics on which courses might be run can be found on the course tab at the top of this blog page.


Filed under courses and training