41–50 of 60 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You could probably have it up on Hetzner or OVH in a couple hours. Lots of dedicated server hosts with more than one DC, and many give you your server in an hour or two.
For colo, or dedicated/managed hardware?
> I can safely say that I have never seen such a broad IP non-assert provision in a standard form contract. What about Facebook's React license? https://github.com/facebook/react/blob/master/PATENTS https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8985541 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9111849
On that note, is there such a thing as a standard contract for web-based service agreements?
"you will not assert...against us or any of our... customers " Is that Amazon customers or just AWS customers? Either way, that's a lot of people.
IANAL... I wonder if random AMZ customers could use this clause in a case without AMZ's cooperation?
So if you were sued for using VMs or S3 storage by a third-party who had used AWS, you could invoke that clause.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For colo, or dedicated/managed hardware?
I'm going off the goalposts in your original question.
Are you trading one cloud provider's feature set for another?
You still outsourcing via PaaS, and not actually investing in IT.
Why do they call it the cloud? Because your exclusive I.P. just up and floats away one day. Stay out of the cloud. Invest in cost-efficient IT. Avoid so many issues. I predicted this specific one years back. I'm surprised I haven't heard more of it among cloud vendors.
Let's play a game. How long will it take you to get: 3 webservers 2 databases Across 2 data centers. Starting with nothing but a credit card, (and an email address).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What you're missing is that this is a FUD article. AWS' terms basically come down to "if you use AWS, you lose the right to patent-troll AWS". The article is trying to spin it as "OH NOES NOW YOU GET TEH VIRAL FROM THE EEEEEEEEEEVIL GPL", though I have no idea on what theory they would base a claim that agreeing not to assert against Amazon and its contractors/vendors would somehow constitute GPL'ing your own code.
The part I'd like more clairification on, is the claim that by using AWS you cannot assert IP claims against any AWS customer . That seems exceedingly broad. As to the FUD: Conflict of interest. Former Patent Chief at MSFT putting an article out on Legal Issues for the #1 Cloud Provider, and MSFT Competitor, Amazon. Wonder how much MSFT stock the Author is holding?
In other words if Amazon stole something and you use it, you can't go after another client of Amazon's for using that service.
If however they also infringed on you, you could, as you aren't going after them for using the service.
(Note that IANAL so my understanding my be incorrect)
I don't know about the US, but in Europe it's quite possible that these clauses would be ruled invalid.
While the warning appears to be well intentioned and the paranoia understandable to me, I didn't quite understand this bit: > Lastly, it’s well known that AWS utilises and hosts a wide range of open > source code which could include viral OSS licences that might further > extend the reach of the IP non-assert in unforeseen and unpredictable ways. Could someone who understood explain this ? Is that last bit just FUD ?…
The entire article is FUD – the license is rather clear in indicating that as a condition of using AWS you promise not to bring IP lawsuits against Amazon, the duration bit is only too long if you don't read that clause all the way to the end, etc. This is easily explained by the attribution: “Bart Eppenauer, former chief patent counsel at Microsoft and now managing partner of law firm Shook Hardy & Bacon’s Seattle o…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
IANAL... I wonder if random AMZ customers could use this clause in a case without AMZ's cooperation?
It looks like the intent is to protect AMZN's customers from IP lawsuits related to their use of the service offerings. So if you were sued for using VMs or S3 storage by a third-party who had used AWS, you could invoke that clause.