RE: [ebxml-cppa] IBM patent disclosure

[David Fischer <david@drummondgroup.com>]

Thanks, I'll take your advice.  I just wish the CPPA vote deadline was not
Friday.

David.

-----Original Message-----
From: James Bryce Clark [mailto:jamie.clark@mmiec.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 9:15 AM
To: David Fischer; ebxml-cppa@lists.oasis-open.org
Cc: Rik Drummond
Subject: RE: [ebxml-cppa] IBM patent disclosure


At 06:44 AM 4/24/02, David Fischer wrote:
>I logged on this morning to vote yes on the specification.  Now I am going to
>abstain.
>
>I gather that the very existence of this technology is what IBM claims and
>there
>is nothing we can change in the specification to obviate IBMs claim -- they
>claim the whole document even though they had a minor role in developing it.
>
>IBM is going to require anyone who uses CPPA to obtain a license?  This makes
>IBM the owner of CPPA!  Marty has assured us that the cost will be zero,
>yet IBM is not willing to make this assurance in writing.  Rest assured
>then, the cost
>will not always be zero.

David, the question of whether IBM is going to provide an irrevocable
assurance is still not settled.  It is possible that they will come to
realize that "we aren't charging for it this week" isn't a full
answer.   While I have no problem with you holding your vote -- I did the
same -- in the broader sense, I would hold my fire on this one and not
reach a final conclusion just yet.

Also, you might look again at the SOAP RAND statements and ask yourself (or
your lawyers) how the risks there are different.

Regards  Jamie Clark

~ James Bryce Clark
~ VP and General Counsel, McLure-Moynihan Inc.
~ Chair, ABA Business Law Subcommittee on Electronic Commerce
~ 1 818 597 9475   jamie.clark@mmiec.com    jbc@lawyer.com
~ This message is neither legal advice nor a binding signature.  Ask me why.