Re: Exclusive License

["Leo Smith" <barter@ntplx.net>]

Dave Crocker wrote:
>Why does such an exclusivity requirement apply here and not, say, to the
sale of >fast food hamburgers?

It does apply to the Fast Food Hamberger as well. When a licensee enters
into a licensing agreement with a fast food licensor/franchisor (say
MacDonalds), the licensing agreement bestows exclusive privileges.
Generally speaking, the license specifies that the licensee has an
exclusive on the MacDonalds franchise within a specific geographic area.
The licensor cannot bring in a second franchisee and open another
MacDonalds next door

Dave Crocker wrote:
>Further, if the sub-licensing is to be done, why should it not, instead,
be done by >the original grantor?

If the sublicense were granted directly from the original licensor, then
sublicensee would effectively become a co-licensee, thereby creating a non
exclusive licensing arrangement. From a business finance perspective, a
licensing agreement for any commercial right holds an undeterminable, but
yet finite, dollar value, usually represented in the form of gross sales.
Why not grant an exclusive license for the gTLD, and let the licensee
(registry) exploit the market to its maximum potential.
It's the free market economy at its best.

If as a condition of the license, the licensee must grant a sublicense to
all other registries, and if in so doing a wholesale price is established
that allows the sublicensee to sell at retail, buy at wholesale, and make a
profit on the transaction, then the underpinnings for a sound financial
structure are in place.

My question back to you is "Why not treat each gTLD as being exclusive to
the licensee, along the line originally outlined in Postel's draft?"