tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post1671332841703354371..comments2024-03-29T11:10:02.290+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Avoidable dispute resolvedVerónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-90974359268538702022009-02-04T14:48:00.000+00:002009-02-04T14:48:00.000+00:00It is now on Bailii, http://www.bailii.org/ew/case...It is now on Bailii, http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2009/97.html. I don't think it does indicate that the judge concluded that neither party understood the contract: he seemed to think that in context it was pretty clear what it meant: "In my judgment the all or nothing nature of maintenance for the software strongly points in favour of the claimant's construction. The reasonable reader of clause 7 would understand that it could not sensibly be creating a special option to elect for maintenance in respect of the licence extension. That fact, coupled with the reference back in the first sentence of clause 7 to the Maintenance Schedule, combine in my judgment to indicate that the parties intended the provisions of the Maintenance Schedule to continue to apply to all maintenance. The option referred to in clause 7 is merely the option (in the sense of the right to cancel) provided by clause 1(c) of the Maintenance Schedule."Peter Groveshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05020506617934637856noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-54014129307398952872009-02-03T21:15:00.000+00:002009-02-03T21:15:00.000+00:00Its not a decision of the Patents CourtIts not a decision of the Patents CourtAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com