1. Sadly, this is a variation on an oft-told story. For example, in Cincom Sys. Inc. v. Novelis Corp., a customer ended up essentially having to re-buy a half-

1. Sadly, this is a variation on an oft-told story. For example, in Cincom Sys. Inc. v. Novelis Corp., a customer ended up essentially having to re-buy a half-million-dollar software license because it did a corporate reorganization that technically resulted in an "assignment" of the license without the consent of the vendor. See http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/09a0346p-06.pdf http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/09a0346p-06.pdf Conceivably the software vendor in this case might come to regret having taken such a hard line with its customer. That customer is highly unlikely ever to buy anything again from that vendor if there's an even remotely-comparable alternative. Of course, the vendor might be figuring that they're not likely to make any additional sales from that customer anyway, so what the hell, squeeze out whatever additional money they can. For a discussion of the legal principles and more examples, along with contract-clause language that can help customers avoid this problem, see http://www.CommonDraft.org/#AssmtConsentAddlCmt http://www.CommonDraft.org/#AssmtConsentAddlCmt and http://www.CommonDraft.org/#AssmtConsentExceptAssetsCls http://www.CommonDraft.org/#AssmtConsentExceptAssetsCls (a side project of mine). 2. In theory the judge in the ABN case might have been able to award the vendor ABN's profits arising "indirectly" from the infringement --- which for bank-transaction software could have been considerable. There is precedent for that: In the 1980s, the MGM Grand Hotel was found liable for 2% of its hotel- and casino profits because its floor show had infringed the copyright in a Broadway musical, the Tony-award-winning Kismet. See http://www.oncontracts.com/a-better-way-to-handle-a-breach-of-contract-at-least-in-some-cases/#MGMGrand http://www.oncontracts.com/a-better-way-to-handle-a-breach-o... for more details (a blog post I did a few years ago). But in this case the judge apparently ruled that she was unable to compute the damages to which the vendor was entitled.