What Does It Mean To End User License Agreement

10.2. Resignation. If a party significantly contravenes this BLUE and does not violate the violation within 30 days of receiving a written notification of an infringement, the non-injurious party may, for that reason, terminate that CLUE. Cisco may terminate this CLLU immediately if you violate sections 2.1 (license and right to use), 3.1 (Cisco Technology Generally), 3.2 (Cloud Services) or 12.8 (Export). After the end of the EULA CL, you must stop using Cisco technology and destroy copies of software and confidential information within your control. If this CLE is terminated due to a substantial Cisco breach, Cisco will refund you, or to your authorized source, the proportionate portion of the fees you paid in advance for the user fees beyond the termination date. After the completion of this CLJ by Cisco for your essential violation, you pay Cisco or the authorized source all unpaid fees until the end of the current use period. If you continue to use or access Cisco technology after termination, Cisco or the authorized source may charge you payment for such continued use and you agree. Unless an agreement has been reached in writing, nothing in this ECJ transfers ownership of intellectual property rights or grants a licence. You retain ownership of your content and Cisco retains ownership of Cisco and Cisco Content technology.

Cisco can use any feedback you give to your use of Cisco technology in your business activities. Some licenses[5] claim to prohibit users from disclosing data on the performance of the software, but this has yet to be challenged in court. The applicability of an AEA depends on several factors, one of which is the court where the case is being tried. Some courts that have considered the validity of The Shrinkwrap Licensing Agreements have invalidated some EULA and have characterized them as liability contracts that are unacceptable and/or unacceptable according to the U.C.C – see z.B. Step-Saver Data Systems, Inc. v. Wyse Technology,[6] Vault Corp. v. Quaid Software Ltd. [7] Other courts have found that the Shrinkwrap licensing agreement is valid and enforceable: cf. ProCD, Inc.

v. Zeidenberg,[8] Microsoft v. Harmony Computers,[9] v. Novell Network Trade Center,[10] and Ariz. Cartridge Remanufacturers Ass`n v. Lexmark Int`l, Inc.[11] may also have acidic supports. No court has ruled on the validity of EU A in general; Decisions are limited to certain provisions and conditions. a company or company that directly or indirectly controls the party concerned, is controlled by the party concerned or is under common control when “control” means (a) own more than 50% of the party concerned; or b) be able to legally manage the affairs of the party concerned (for example.

B a contract authorizing control).