FAQs

An option to sub-license would break the relationship between the licensing of the IP and the use of the IP, eroding the consistency of the licensing agreement and distorting the revenue structure.

The LIXI I.P. Policy requires that contributed I.P. supporting the standards process be non-exclusively licensed to LIXI and that contributed I.P. that is incorporated into the standard be assigned to LIXI.

Contributed materials typically include the input by contributors' representatives at a working group to business requirements documentation and sample schema as well as postings to LIXI discussion threads. Sometimes contributors will also make pre-existing material available to LIXI. It is essential that LIXI receive a licence to use these materials for the purpose of developing the Standards. Therefore, LIXI requires that contributors grant LIXI a non-exclusive licence over any contributed materials - but not that the contributor assign the IP in contributed materials to LIXI.

It is only when contributed materials become part of a Standard that LIXI requires that the IP in any part of the contributed materials that is incorporated into the Standard is assigned to LIXI. Having developed a Standard, it is essential that LIXI own the IP in the Standard so that it is able to provide Licensees with a secure right to use it. A Standard consists of contributions by all of the working group participants as well as work done by LIXI's staff to document and creates the Business Requirements, Schema, Implementation Guidebook and any other documentation and material that comprise the Standard. It is in the interests of users of Standards that they know LIXI is the sole source of standard IP, as this provides increased certainty that a Standard Licensee will not face a claim by a contributor that the use of a Standard in some way infringes the contributor's IP. It is also in LIXI's interests that it remain the only source from which users can license the Standards.

Contributors who have concerns about the assignment of their IP to LIXI when it is incorporated into a Standard should bear the following in mind. First, it is always a contributor's choice as to what materials they contribute. If you consider that IP gives you a core competitive advantage that you do not want made available to LIXI Licensees, do not contribute it. Second, contributors generally seek to have their IP incorporated in a Standard for a reason – so that the Standard aligns more closely with their way of doing business. It is in fact to their business benefit that a standard look more like their own way of doing business.

Finally, a contributor is given an opportunity to notify LIXI if any IP it is not willing to surrender is included in a Standard. This provides a final safeguard for contributors who do not want to assign their IP in a Standard to LIXI. LIXI's response in such a situation would likely be to modify the Standard so that it no longer incorporated the contributor's IP, because the principle that LIXI own the IP in the Standards is absolutely critical to LIXI's Licensing model.

Prior to 2006, the process did not assign IP of Contributed Materials to LIXI ,rather, it relied on the license granted to LIXI to use the Contributed Materials for the purpose of developing the Standards. A review conducted in 2006 identified this as a IP deficiency, because it could undermine LIXI's ability to enforce and protect its rights as the exclusive owner of to the Standards, Finally, it is worth noting that the new approach to this issue brings LIXI into line with other standards bodies, including MISMO, LIXI's US equivalent, which adopts a similar policy.

Wholly owned subsidiaries engaged in the internal business purposes of the Licensee are entitled to benefit from the licence granted to the Licensee. This is reflected in the End User Licence Agreement, as a wholly owned subsidiary, parent or sibling entity is an Authorised User, provided its use of the Standards is solely for the internal business purposes of the Licensee.

The Authorised User provision does not extend to related entities that are engaging in their own business, as opposed to the business of the Licensee. If you are in any doubt as to the whether an entity in a corporate group qualifies as an Authorised User, then you should request that LIXI consider whether the entity in question can be specifically named as a Licensee or Authorised User in your license certificate.

In making a determination regarding whether a wholly owned subsidiary uses a standard solely for the internal business purpose of the Licensee, LIXI takes a number of factors into account including whether product sets are competing or complementary and the degree of separation between the businesses management, operations, and systems.

LIXI does not permit joint ventures to benefit from the Licence granted to one of the joint venture parties. In this case, the joint venture must obtain its own Licence.

Software vendors are permitted to licence their software directly to the end users of any Licensee, including their clients' end users, provided that the end users are using the software for the internal business purposes of the Licensee. Clause 3.1(c) provides that software vendors may license their software "to a person who holds a current licence from LIXI to Use the relevant Standards". An end user of a Licensee who is using LIXI standards-based software solely for the internal business purposes of the Licensee holds a current Licence (Clause 1.1 of the End User Licence Agreement).

This covers the situation where, for example, broker point of sale software is used to submit electronic applications using the CAL Standard to a lender who holds a Licence of the CAL Standard. When submitting applications to the lender, the broker is an Authorised User of the lender because they are using the software for the internal business purpose of the lender. Under clause 3.1(c), the software provider is entitled to license the software directly to the broker for submitting applications to the lender, as the broker holds a Licence of the Standards for that purpose.

It is important to note that in this example, the aggregator/broker group under whom the broker is submitting the application will itself need to hold a Licence if it uses the Standards for its own internal business purpose as part of the same transaction. An example of this is where the aggregator has integrated the point of sale system with its own back end systems, including CRM, loan tracking or commission systems. In these cases, LIXI is being used for the aggregator's own internal business purpose, as well as for the lender's internal business purpose, and both lender and aggregator must hold a Licence.

The End User Licence Agreement is quite clear on this point – you are not permitted to license your software to anyone unless they hold a licence to use the relevant Standards or are otherwise an Authorised User of the relevant Standards. Any license you purport to grant to a party who does not meet this test will be in breach of your obligations to LIXI under your licence to use the Standards.

You should take your own legal advice on how to ensure that you do not breach this obligation to LIXI. For example, you may choose to include warranties in your licence agreements to the effect that your client holds all necessary licences from LIXI. Or you may ask LIXI that a client who does not itself hold a licence be named as an Authorised User under your Licence Agreement. LIXI will consider granting such a request only in exceptional circumstances. Ultimately, it is your responsibility to ensure that you meet your obligations under the End User Licence Agreement.

No. Third line forcing involves making the supply of goods or services to a person, or the supply of goods or services at a particular price or on particular conditions, conditional upon the person obtaining goods and services from an identified third party.

LIXI has obtained legal advice that the current licensing regime, and in particular, the requirement that software incorporating the Standards be licensed only to parties who themselves are Licensees or Authorised Users of the Standards, does not contravene the third line forcing prohibitions in the Trade Practices Act. Such an arrangement is not uncommon in the software industry, where one piece of software requires another piece of software to run. A simple example is when you send someone a Powerpoint document you expect that they will have licensed a copy of Powerpoint from Microsoft in order to open the presentation.

The LIXI CAL 2.0 Standards Package contains the information necessary for an equipment finance transaction. This information is specifically within Non-Real Estate Asset Types and Vendor Tax Invoice data as well as the Applicant data. The applicant data is generally the same for either an equipment finance or mortgage transaction, so remained widely unchanged.

It is up to an organisation to decide which data they would like to use for the transaction(s) they are conducting.

In the event that LIXI is wound up, rule 130 of the LIXI Constitution provides a mechanism for Members to determine how all assets including IP are disposed of. This provision protects Licensees by ensuring that LIXI's IP continues to be made available to the lending industry by an institution with the same or similar aims as LIXI.

The basic requirements for SMSF applications are accommodated within the CAL schema as follows:
• Applicant 1 (the Borrower) is the SMSF trust with the trustee details provided and @TrustType=”SMSF”;
• Income@Type for Applicant 1 (the SMSF trust/trustee) may include concessional and/or non-concessional contributions.
• Applicant 2 (a Guarantor) is the Security Trust with the trustee details also provided and @TrustType=”SecurityTrust”. The SMSF trust is shown as the Beneficiary of the Security trust. Note that the trustee of the Security Trust may be the same person as the trustee of the SMSF Trust.
• The purchased property is owned by Applicant 2 (the Security trust/trustee, as guarantor) and is offered as security for the loan;
• Rental income is associated with the purchased property;
• Additional guarantors (most likely persons) may need to be provided either to show income, to offer other security, or both.