Common use of Inspection and Report Clause in Contracts

Inspection and Report. Upon a reasonable and good faith belief that a particular hardware model or software version of a Licensed Product designed or manufactured by Adopter does not comply with the Robustness Rules then in effect for such Licensed Product, and upon reasonable notice to Adopter via DTLA, CPUG may request Adopter to submit promptly to an independent expert (acceptable to Adopter, which acceptance shall not be unreasonably withheld) for inspection such detailed information as Adopter deems necessary to understand such product's implementation of the Specification and Compliance Rules, such as would be sufficient to determine whether such product complies with these Robustness Rules. Adopter's participation in this inspection procedure is voluntary; no adverse inference may be drawn from Adopter's refusal of the CPUG request or refusal to participate, in whole or in part, in such inspection. The conduct of such inspection and the contents of any report made by the independent expert shall be subject to the provisions of a nondisclosure agreement, mutually-agreeable to CPUG, Adopter, and such expert, such agreement not to be unreasonably withheld, that also provide protections for Confidential Information and Highly Confidential Information relating to DTCP that are no less stringent than those provided for in this Agreement. Such examination and report shall be conducted at the sole expense of CPUG. Nothing in this paragraph shall limit the role or testimony of such expert, if any, in a judicial proceeding under such protective orders as a court may impose. Adopter shall not be precluded or estopped from challenging the opinion of such expert in any forum; nor shall any party be entitled to argue that any greater weight or evidentiary presumption should be accorded to the expert report than to any other relevant evidence. This provision may not be invoked more than once per hardware model or software version, provided that such right of inspection shall include the right to re-inspect the implementation of such model or version if it has been revised in an effort to cure any alleged failure of compliance.

Inspection and Report. Upon a reasonable and good faith belief that a particular hardware model or software version of a Licensed Product designed or manufactured by Adopter does not comply with the Robustness Rules then in effect for such Licensed Product, and upon reasonable notice to Adopter via DTLA, CPUG may request Adopter to submit promptly to an independent expert (acceptable to Adopter, which acceptance shall not be unreasonably withheld) for inspection such detailed information as Adopter deems necessary to understand such product's implementation of the DTCP2 Specification and Compliance Rules, such as would be sufficient to determine whether such product complies with these Robustness Rules. Adopter's participation in this inspection procedure is voluntary; no adverse inference may be drawn from Adopter's refusal of the CPUG request or refusal to participate, in whole or in part, in such inspection. The conduct of such inspection and the contents of any report made by the independent expert shall be subject to the provisions of a nondisclosure agreement, mutually-agreeable to CPUG, Adopter, and such expert, such agreement not to be unreasonably withheld, that also provide protections for Confidential Information and Highly Confidential Information relating to DTCP DTCP2 that are no less stringent than those provided for in this Agreement. Such examination and report shall be conducted at the sole expense of CPUG. Nothing in this paragraph shall limit the role or testimony of such expert, if any, in a judicial proceeding under such protective orders as a court may impose. Adopter shall not be precluded or estopped from challenging the opinion of such expert in any forum; nor shall any party be entitled to argue that any greater weight or evidentiary presumption should be accorded to the expert report than to any other relevant evidence. This provision may not be invoked more than once per hardware model or software version, provided that such right of inspection shall include the right to re-inspect the implementation of such model or version if it has been revised in an effort to cure any alleged failure of compliance. The following Robustness Rules apply to Licensed Products and Licensed Components manufactured in compliance with the DTCP2 Specification when receiving or transmitting Commercial Entertainment Content using L2 protection. For the convenience of Adopter, Table 2 in Exhibit C-General summarizes the combination of settings in cases in which the Robustness Rules for L2 Protection in this Exhibit C Part 2 may be applied. NOTE: For clarification, the Robustness Rules for L2 protection in Part 2 always may be applied to Enhanced Image and Non-Enhanced Image.

Inspection and Report. Upon a reasonable and good faith belief that a particular hardware model or software version of a Licensed Product designed or manufactured by Adopter does not comply with the Robustness Rules then in effect for such Licensed Product, and upon reasonable notice to Adopter via DTLA, CPUG may request Adopter to submit promptly to an independent expert (acceptable to Adopter, which acceptance shall not be unreasonably withheld) for inspection such detailed information as Adopter deems necessary to understand such product's implementation of the DTCP2 Specification and Compliance Rules, such as would be sufficient to determine whether such product complies with these Robustness Rules. Adopter's participation in this inspection procedure is voluntary; no adverse inference may be drawn from Adopter's refusal of the CPUG request or refusal to participate, in whole or in part, in such inspection. The conduct of such inspection and the contents of any report made by the independent expert shall be subject to the provisions of a nondisclosure agreement, mutually-agreeable to CPUG, Adopter, and such expert, such agreement not to be unreasonably withheld, that also provide protections for Confidential Information and Highly Confidential Information relating to DTCP DTCP2 that are no less stringent than those provided for in this Agreement. Such examination and report shall be conducted at the sole expense of CPUG. Nothing in this paragraph shall limit the role or testimony of such expert, if any, in a judicial proceeding under such protective orders as a court may impose. Adopter shall not be precluded or estopped from challenging the opinion of such expert in any forum; nor shall any party be entitled to argue that any greater weight or evidentiary presumption should be accorded to the expert report than to any other relevant evidence. This provision may not be invoked more than once per hardware model or software version, provided that such right of inspection shall include the right to re-inspect the implementation of such model or version if it has been revised in an effort to cure any alleged failure of compliance.

Inspection and Report. Upon a reasonable and good faith belief that a particular hardware model or software version of a Licensed Product designed or manufactured by Adopter does not comply with the Robustness Rules then in effect for such Licensed Product, and upon reasonable notice to Adopter via DTLALicensor, CPUG one or more Eligible Content Participant(s) may request that Adopter to submit promptly to an independent expert (acceptable to Adopter, which acceptance shall not be unreasonably withheld) for inspection such detailed information as Adopter deems necessary to understand an understanding of such product's ’s implementation of the Specification and HDCP Specification, Compliance Rules, and Robustness Rules such as would be sufficient to determine whether such product so complies with these Robustness Rules. Adopter's ’s participation in this such inspection procedure and provision of such information is voluntary; no adverse inference may be drawn from Adopter's refusal of the CPUG request or ’s refusal to participate, in whole or in part, participate in such inspectioninspection or provide such information. The conduct of such inspection and the contents of any report made by the independent expert shall be subject to the provisions of a nondisclosure agreement, mutually-mutually agreeable to CPUGsuch Eligible Content Participant(s), Adopter, Adopter and such expert, such agreement not to be unreasonably withheld, that also provide provides protections for Confidential Information and Highly Confidential Information relating to DTCP that are no less stringent than those provided for in this Agreement. Such examination and report shall be conducted at the sole expense of CPUGthe Eligible Content Participant(s) that requested such inspection. Nothing in this paragraph Section 3.7 shall limit the role or testimony of such expert, if any, in a judicial proceeding under such protective orders as a court may impose. Adopter shall not be precluded or estopped from challenging the opinion of such expert in any forum; nor shall any party be entitled to argue that any greater weight or evidentiary presumption should be accorded to the expert report than to any other relevant evidence. This Once this provision may not be has been invoked more than once per by any Eligible Content Participant(s) with respect to any hardware model or software version, it may not be invoked again by the same or other Eligible Content Participants with respect to the same hardware model or software version of a Licensed Product, provided that such the right of to request inspection shall include the right to request re-inspect inspection of the implementation of such model or version if it has been revised in an effort to cure any alleged failure of compliance. Nothing in this Section 3.7 shall grant a license or permission for any party to decompile or disassemble software code in Adopter’s products.

Inspection and Report. Upon a reasonable and good faith belief that a particular hardware model or software version of a Licensed Product designed or manufactured by Adopter does not comply with the Robustness Rules then in effect for such Licensed Product, and upon reasonable notice to Adopter via DTLALicensor, CPUG one or more Eligible Content Participant(s) may request that Adopter to submit promptly to an independent expert (acceptable to Adopter, which acceptance shall not be unreasonably withheld) for inspection such detailed information as Adopter deems necessary to understand an understanding of such product's ’s implementation of the Specification and HDCP Specification, Compliance Rules, and Robustness Rules such as would be sufficient to determine whether such product so complies with these Robustness Rules. Adopter's ’s participation in this such inspection procedure and provision of such information is voluntary; no adverse inference may be drawn from Adopter's refusal of the CPUG request or ’s refusal to participate, in whole or in part, participate in such inspectioninspection or provide such information. The conduct of such inspection and the contents of any report made by the independent expert shall be subject to the provisions of a nondisclosure agreement, mutually-mutually agreeable to CPUGsuch Eligible Content Participant(s), Adopter, Adopter and such expert, such agreement not to be unreasonably withheld, that also provide provides protections for Confidential Information and Highly Confidential Information relating to DTCP that are no less stringent than those provided for in this Agreement. Such examination and report shall be conducted at the sole expense of CPUGthe Eligible Content Participant(s) that requested such inspection. Nothing in this paragraph Section 4.6 shall limit the role or testimony of such expert, if any, in a judicial proceeding under such protective orders as a court may impose. Adopter shall not be precluded or estopped from challenging the opinion of such expert in any forum; nor shall any party be entitled to argue that any greater weight or evidentiary presumption should be accorded to the expert report than to any other relevant evidence. This Once this provision may not be has been invoked more than once per by any Eligible Content Participant(s) with respect to any hardware model or software version, it may not be invoked again by the same or other Eligible Content Participants with respect to the same hardware model or software version of a Licensed Product, provided that such the right of to request inspection shall include the right to request re-inspect inspection of the implementation of such model or version if it has been revised in an effort to cure any alleged failure of compliance.. Nothing in this Section 4.6 shall grant a license or permission for any party to decompile or disassemble software code in Adopter’s products. For review only - Not valid for execution

Inspection and Report. Upon a reasonable and good faith belief that a particular hardware model or software version of a Licensed Product designed or manufactured by Adopter does not comply with the Robustness Rules then in effect for such Licensed Product, and upon reasonable notice to Adopter via DTLALicensor, CPUG one or more Eligible Content Participant(s) may request that Adopter to submit promptly to an independent expert (acceptable to Adopter, which acceptance shall not be unreasonably withheld) for inspection such detailed information as Adopter deems necessary to understand an understanding of such product's ’s implementation of the Specification and HDCP Specification, Compliance Rules, and Robustness Rules such as would be sufficient to determine whether such product so complies with these Robustness Rules. Adopter's ’s participation in this such inspection procedure and provision of such information is voluntary; no adverse inference may be drawn from Adopter's refusal of the CPUG request or ’s refusal to participate, in whole or in part, participate in such inspectioninspection or provide such information. The conduct of such inspection and the contents of any report made by the independent expert shall be subject to the provisions of a nondisclosure agreement, mutually-mutually agreeable to CPUGsuch Eligible Content Participant(s), Adopter, Adopter and such expert, such agreement not to be unreasonably withheld, that also provide provides protections for Confidential Information and Highly Confidential Information relating to DTCP that are no less stringent than those provided for in this Agreement. Such examination and report shall be conducted at the sole expense of CPUGthe Eligible Content Participant(s) that requested such inspection. Nothing in this paragraph Section 3.7 shall limit the role or testimony of such expert, if any, in a judicial proceeding under such protective orders as a court may impose. Adopter shall not be precluded or estopped from challenging the opinion of such expert in any forum; nor shall any party be entitled to argue that any greater weight or evidentiary presumption should be accorded to the expert report than to any other relevant evidence. This Once this provision may not be has been invoked more than once per by any Eligible Content Participant(s) with respect to any hardware model or software version, it may not be invoked again by the same or other Eligible Content Participants with respect to the same hardware model or software version of a Licensed Product, provided that such the right of to request inspection shall include the right to request re-inspect inspection of the implementation of such model or version if it has been revised in an effort to cure any alleged failure of compliance.compliance.‌‌

Inspection and Report. Upon a reasonable and good faith belief that a particular hardware model or software version of a Licensed Product designed or manufactured by Adopter does not comply with the Robustness Rules then in effect for such Licensed Product, and upon reasonable notice to Adopter via DTLA, CPUG may request Adopter to submit promptly to an independent expert (acceptable to Adopter, which acceptance shall not be unreasonably withheld) for inspection such detailed information as Adopter deems necessary to understand such product's implementation of the Specification and Compliance Rules, such as would be sufficient to determine whether such product complies with these Robustness Rules. Adopter's participation in this inspection procedure is voluntary; no adverse inference may be drawn from Adopter's refusal of the CPUG request or refusal to participate, in whole or in part, in such inspection. The conduct of such inspection and the contents of any report made by the independent expert shall be subject to the provisions of a nondisclosure agreement, mutually-agreeable to CPUG, Adopter, and such expert, such agreement not to be unreasonably withheld, that also provide protections for Confidential Information and Highly Confidential Information relating to DTCP that are no less stringent than those provided for in this Agreement. Such examination and report shall be conducted at the sole expense of CPUG. Nothing in this paragraph shall limit the role or testimony of such expert, if any, in a judicial proceeding under such protective orders as a court may impose. Adopter shall not be precluded or estopped from challenging the opinion of such expert in any forum; nor shall any party be entitled to argue that any greater weight or evidentiary presumption should be accorded to the expert report than to any other relevant evidence. This provision may not be invoked more than once per hardware model or software version, provided that such right of inspection shall include the right to re-inspect the implementation of such model or version if it has been revised in an effort to cure any alleged failure of compliance. Notwithstanding whether any particular design or production work is being outsourced or handled by contractors to the company, compliance with the above Rules remains the responsibility of this company. 1. Has the Licensed Product been designed and manufactured so there are no switches, buttons, jumpers, or software equivalents of the foregoing, or specific traces that can be cut, by which the content protection technologies, analog protection systems, output restrictions, recording limitations, or other mandatory provisions of the Specification or Compliance Rules can be defeated or by which Decrypted DT Data can be exposed to unauthorized copying? 2. Has the Licensed Product been designed and manufactured so there are no service menus and no functions (such as remote-control functions, switches, check boxes, or other means) that can intercept the flow of Decrypted DT Data or expose it to unauthorized copying? 3. Has the Licensed Product been designed and manufactured so there are no service menus and no functions (such as remote-control functions, switches, check boxes, or other means) that can turn off any analog protection systems, output restrictions, recording limitations, or other mandatory provisions of the Specification or Compliance Rules? 4. Does the Licensed Product have service menus, service functions, or service utilities that can alter or expose the flow of Decrypted DT Data within the device? If Yes, please describe these service menus, service functions, or service utilities and the steps that are being taken to ensure that these service tools will not be used to expose or misdirect Decrypted DT Data.