zlacker

>>pavel_+(OP)
I'm surprised these clauses manage to prevent benchmarks. Surely someone with no Oracle contract can still publish them? Leak a benchmark, benchmark on someone else's system, whatever. It shouldn't be too hard to publish a benchmark for which this clause can't be enforced.

>>mcv+j9
I find that with contracts in general, lawyers will throw in all sorts of clauses that may or may not be enforceable and hope they stick. That's why they add something to get you to agree "if one part is found to be invalid or unenforceable all the other parts are still valid".

>>slanty+Vf
>>> if one part is found to be invalid or unenforceable all the other parts are still valid

Also an invalid clause. They don't get to decide what is valid or not, that's up to the judge.

>>user59+Zl
They're called severability clauses. Courts frequently uphold them independently of finding other unenforceable or invalid clauses. Any contract written by a lawyer worth their salt has one and it's usually based on wording that has been tested in a court.

I am not a lawyer, this isn't legal advice.

>>jacque+tn
Still, it's invalid.

It's up to the judge to decide what is valid and not. The court has the power to decide on each clause individually and the contract as a whole.

It's the normal outcome that when one minor clause is deemed invalid, only that clause is dismissed, not the whole contract.

It doesn't costs anything to write it down to clarify. That's exactly why it's written in every standard contract. There could be a different jurisdiction somewhere one day that decides to invalidate entire contracts by default for any stupid reason, I don't know of one in the western countries but I suppose it's possible.