Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mistwell" data-source="post: 3468642" data-attributes="member: 2525">It's not standard for licensing deals.&nbsp; It's standard for press releases over controversial mutual business decisions between existing joint venture partners.If [Software Company] and [Technology Company] are severing a relationship and continuing licensing for a period of 6 months for transition purposes, you can be damn sure both agree that nobody says anything different from the other party for that period of time, and that is accomplished by each party approving the other parties press releases.&nbsp; Same thing happens if Company X is selling division Y to company Z, pending SEC approval.&nbsp; Or a host of other scenarios where a relationship continues pending a specific event (which is what happened here).The agreement to extend the license beyond the termination date is in fact the beginning of a new agreement.&nbsp; And as part of the consideration for such an extension, it would be typical to require that both parties say the same thing about the deal in public, and sign mutual NDAs/Non-disclosures.&nbsp; It's really unusual to not do that in this kind of situation.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mistwell, post: 3468642, member: 2525"] It's not standard for licensing deals. It's standard for press releases over controversial mutual business decisions between existing joint venture partners. If [Software Company] and [Technology Company] are severing a relationship and continuing licensing for a period of 6 months for transition purposes, you can be damn sure both agree that nobody says anything different from the other party for that period of time, and that is accomplished by each party approving the other parties press releases. Same thing happens if Company X is selling division Y to company Z, pending SEC approval. Or a host of other scenarios where a relationship continues pending a specific event (which is what happened here). The agreement to extend the license beyond the termination date is in fact the beginning of a new agreement. And as part of the consideration for such an extension, it would be typical to require that both parties say the same thing about the deal in public, and sign mutual NDAs/Non-disclosures. It's really unusual to not do that in this kind of situation. [/QUOTE]

Verification