Uniface License Agreement

This unsightly situation is another example of the existence of a powerful SAM program within your organization and of having documented evidence of Asset Manager software in relation to licensing grants that can be received by email or otherwise implied. The burden of proof always falls on the client. You can always purchase a valid license for the Uniface platform directly from us. With respect to the defence, Citibank argues that Uniface was fully aware of the fact that the software attributed to Citibank since the original agreement between the two parties in 1999 and subject to an endorsement in 2013. Haavind represented Uniface in a dispute against a value-added “VAR.” The dispute had been subject to several decision-making purposes, including the right of Unifaces to obtain additional licence fees under the VAR agreement, the termination of the VAR agreement and the VAR`s rights to use after the end of the VAR agreement. Norwegian copyright will be fully harmonised with EU copyright. Copyright law gives the software owner exclusive rights to produce copies of the software as well as exclusive rights to broadcast and broadcast to the public. The use of the software by third parties must be based on consent. If a non-permanent use agreement is terminated, the use must normally end on the effective date of the termination. In its March 2020 judgment, the Oslo Regional Court found that Uniface`s interpretation of the agreement was correct in all its aspects. The court awarded Uniface a total of NOK 19.5 million in additional royalties from the VAR in 2018 and 2019. The Court also found that Uniface had the right to terminate the contract for convenience as of January 1, 2020.

Audits of software vendors can be extremely tiring, tedious and expensive. They are infinitely more painful when this disagreement between the seller and the customer gives rise to disputes and the event becomes public. This is where the banking giant is; Citibank NA opposes Uniface BV`s action before the High Courts of London, United Kingdom. From time to time and for a number of reasons, a software application provider may cease to play the role of our VAR, so it may stop supporting a Uniface application it has developed or no longer provide its customers with valid Uniface licenses. Citigroup recognizes the availability on 3 servers, and the 4 additional servers were in fact test, disaster recovery and support servers, which generally do not require additional or complete license purchases according to the traditional rules of typical software providers. Citibank also claims that the license keys for additional servers became voluntary when it reported to Uniface in 2017 the extension of the supply to its sites in the United States, London and Singapore. Uniface writes: “Until the defendant has disclosed the actual nature and full scope of the un conceded user of the Uniface software, the plaintiff is not in a position to quantify his loss and therefore seeks an investigation for damages.” Given that the relationship between the two parties dates back to 1999, it is entirely possible that a contractual verification clause was not included in the agreement. In September 2018, Uniface, formerly owned by Compuware Corp, filed a complaint claiming that Citibank had contractually violated its licensing agreement by overcharging its Uniface Virtual Machine and Uniface Polyserver (the “software”) on 7 servers instead of the 3 for which it held a license. On the basis of Norwegian copyright and the VAR agreement, the Court of Justice continued to appeal to Uniface and therefore rejected applications for reuse beyond the last effective date of the VAR agreement. The Court also rejected the var`s appeal. Uniface B.V. is a Dutch software company that offers software of the same brand as the company.

Uniface software is a well-established, highly productive development platform that can be easily integrated into other business resources.