Re: irrevelant with this group but i really need help (About bringing a suit against Oracle University Turkey)
Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 23:00:56 -0800 (PST)
On Dec 30, 11:57 am, hpuxrac <johnbhur..._at_sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On Dec 29, 6:29 pm, DA Morgan <damor..._at_psoug.org> wrote:
> > Mark Townsend has publicly posted statements with respect to the intent
> > of the license for XE and has personally encouraged many to use XE for
> > teaching purposes.
> > As Mark represents Oracle in his capacity, and as his comments are
> > a matter of public record, it is a safe assumption that you are
> > incorrect.
> Then why exactly would you explain ( as the OP has claimed ) that OUT
> is targeting the OP?
> Unless you claim to be speaking for oracle why don't you let Mr.
> Townsend respond?
Well, I look forward to Mark repeating what he told me a couple of years ago by way of a public post on this very forum (if I remember correctly)... which was that third-party training using XE, unlike third-party training using otn.oracle.com downloads, would be perfectly acceptable under the XE license terms.
Inevitably, it all comes down to the specific license conditions under which XE was obtained and installed -and, equally inevitably, correctly interpreting a license agreement from Oracle requires a lawyer or a willingness to litigate, but in this case -as a non- - I would certainly want to draw attention to the "License Rights" paragraph of the relevant license, section (c) of which reads:
c) you may use the programs to provide third party demonstrations and training
It is quite possible that Oracle University Turkey is as oblivious to legal subtleties and their actual legal position as any department in any large multinational organisation can be at times. You can't expect them to welcome competition, after all. It's also possible that the legal agreement signed up to in Turkey is profoundly different to the one I just reviewed from Australia. And it's even possible that the original poster is in violation of some **other** provision of the XE license (such as "You agree not to use Oracle trademarks (including "ORACLE") or potentially confusing variations (including "ORA") as a part of your product name(s), service name(s), company name, or domain name(s)."), but in that case, I would expect them to make it clear which specific part of the license they consider the original poster to be in breach of.
Oracle University will, however, be especially sensitive to any former staff member embarking on the provision of third-party training, particularly if there is even the slightest suggestion that the training material being used was in any way informed, inflected or advised by any material included in the copyrighted Oracle University training material. It is common for corporations to insert a clause in employment contracts to the effect that employees may not directly compete with their employers for a given period of time after the employer leaves the employ of the corporation precisely so as to avoid such suggestions of the inadvertent use of copyrighted material outside of the corporation's control.
One would, I think, need to see the specifics of the letter sent by OUT to the original poster to see on what precise legal grounds the corporation is taking its stance. It may not be the XE license after all, for example, but the violation of some such non-compete employment contract clause (the legal validity of which is often questionable in many jurisdictions... but that's again a matter for expensive litigation). Received on Sun Dec 30 2007 - 01:00:56 CST