Alain: If this step is as simple as you suggest...

eric: was refering to the common law trademark protection, which is of course
dependant upon use and diffusion (and thus should be plastered on an internet
site, later once decided upon)


Eric: Associates would be able to come and go as they
please, and have no liability or responsability.

Alain: Do they vote?

Eric: on things other than changing the partnership agreement, on the decision
to admit new partners yes, or to enter into contracts, thus for example on
licensing issues, the name and other miscellaneous stuff yes. 

Eric: In exchange for a reasonable amount of work they
would be able to keep a copy of the metaCard engine,
plus mention in the credits.

Alain: The "reasonable amount of work" will not always
be easy to evaluate.

Eric: True, its up to the partners, and dependant upon the agreement which
will be later entered into with MC.


Eric: All persons (associates and partners) would have
to agree to change the partnership agreement.

Alain: Shouldn't this be Partners-Only ?

Eric: If you wish, but I would say that the practical effect of including
partners and associates would set the actual agreement in stone and make it
effectively impossible to change. 

Alain: OK. Subjectively or objectively ?

Eric: up to the partners.

Eric: By using unanimity of decision and two levels
you obtain the protection (for associates) and
stability and coherence (of partners) required for
this project.

Alain: Why do you include associates in this? 

Eric: Because not everyone will have time/energy/desire to be a partner


____________________________________________________________________
Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1

Reply via email to