(07-31-2013 09:20 PM)john01992 Wrote: with all this new talk of conference realignment and GOR being discussed (and some questioning if they can hold up in court). this article does raise questions about GOR and if they are as strong as we think they are. For the record im not saying this stuff is 100% true, but it is something to be discussed
http://www.outkickthecoverage.com/myth-o...rights.php
Seems like an article mostly devoted to showing by accident the difference between intellectual property rights contracts and the kinds of contracts the author deals with. That's a difference between a contract to deliver, say, a load of paving blocks, paving baselayer and paving sand and a contract to transfer intellectual property rights. The contract to perform physical work takes time to complete. The transfer of intellectual property takes place at the instant the contract is finalized, since the intellectual property is just rule in law.
So the Grant of Rights is not a
promise to deliver rights sometime in the future, its a grant of rights over the specified period that is executed when the contract is signed, sealed, and delivered.
If School X wants to leave Conference A for Conference B, but has already granted its rights to Conference A for a specific period, there is isn't any breach of the GOR, so there isn't any damages owed under the GOR, because School X doesn't have rights to give to Conference B until the GOR expires.
And contrary to the author's argument, it is a
lot simpler to work out who was first granted exclusive rights and what was included in that grant than it is to determine damages, so if the court takes the easy way out in the event of a dispute, they will just rule that Conference B can't have any home game rights from School X without Conference A agreeing to it.
Or as the Asst Prof of Music Industry & Entertainment Studies in the comments says:
Quote: This means that when you grant an exclusive license, even you may not exercise the granted right, nor may you authorize anyone else to do so. This is not a new idea. Examples of contracts which contain a GOR clause include recording contracts, publishing contracts, and software licensing contracts. GOR have been upheld in the past and are hard to get out of (see mellencamp v. riva music). If what you are suggesting would actually get someone out of a GOR clause, it would have been argued by now.