澄清条款与条件

Good morning, Ms. Chen. I appreciate you taking the time to review the updated draft. I'd like to go over a few specific clauses, particularly Clause 7.2 concerning intellectual property ownership.

Good morning, Mr. Lee. Of course. We noticed that change. Our understanding is that any IP developed collaboratively during this project would be jointly owned. However, Clause 7.2 now seems to imply that your company would retain primary ownership. Could you clarify that for us?

Certainly. The intent is for joint ownership of the *output* of the project. However, the clause aims to ensure that any pre-existing intellectual property brought to the table by either party, or indeed, any enhancements developed *solely* by one party, remains their individual property. It's about protecting the originating party's assets.

I see. So, if we develop a new proprietary software tool *specifically* for this project, but it's based on some of our existing core technology, how does that fall under this clause? Will the new tool's ownership still be considered joint if our pre-existing tech is involved?

That's a good point. In such a scenario, the new software tool itself, as the 'output,' would typically be jointly owned. The clause ensures that your *underlying* core technology, which predates this project, remains solely yours. We can add some clarifying language to further delineate this, perhaps by adding a specific sub-clause detailing enhancements to existing IP.

That would be very helpful. Also, regarding the liability clause, Clause 10.1, it mentions 'indirect damages.' Can you give us some examples of what would be considered indirect damages in the context of this agreement? We want to ensure we fully understand the scope of that.

Absolutely. Indirect damages typically include things like loss of profits, loss of anticipated savings, loss of data, or reputational harm, that aren't a direct and immediate consequence of a breach. For example, if a delay on our end causes you to lose a separate, unrelated contract with a third party, that could be deemed an indirect damage.

Understood. That distinction is crucial for our risk assessment. Thank you for the detailed explanation. Adding the clarification on IP and perhaps refining the language around indirect damages would bring us much closer to finalizing this agreement.