Re: [ebxml-cppa] IBM patent disclosure

[Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@sun.com>]

Bob,

Nor am I a lawyer, but that is beside the point IMO.
If IBM starts to charge for the licenses, they would
lose credibility which I would suspect would be the
last thing they'd want.

As to the question of licensing, this has been addressed[1].

Cheers,

Chris

[1] http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ebxml-cppa/200204/msg00059.html

bhaugen wrote:

> From: Christopher Ferris 
> 
> 
>>I believe that IBM has, in fact, responded formally
>>indicating that they will not charge for the licenses to their
>>patents as recorded in the following emails[1,2,3] from Marty
>>Sachs and Patrick Gannon. Patrick's email (archived in at least
>>two mailing list archives) includes a copy of an email from Bob
>>Sutor specifically claiming that IBM will not charge for the
>>licenses.
>>
> 
> I am not a lawyer, but I don't think emails are adequate
> cover for implementers.
> 
> Plus, the question of whether implementers or users
> need to apply to IBM for licenses is still looming.
> 
> As is the grandiose scope of the patent in general,
> which appears to cover any kind of electronic
> business process.
> 
> I am not a voting member of this group - just a lurker.
> But the concerns over IBM's patent disclosure and
> in particular how they handled it go way beyond
> this group.
> 
> -Bob Haugen
> 
> 
> 
>