Re: [ebxml-cppa] IBM patent disclosure

[James Bryce Clark <jamie.clark@mmiec.com>]

At 07:14 AM 4/24/02, Christopher Ferris 
wrote:
> *** First, I believe that IBM has,
> in fact, responded formally indicating that they will not charge for the
> licenses to their patents *** includes a copy of an email from Bob Sutor
> specifically claiming that IBM will not charge for the licenses. I fail
> to see how you can claim that the cost will not always be
> zero.

As noted earlier, "I won't charge today" and "I won't
charge ever" are different.

> As to the
> assertion that IBM "had a minor role in developing it [CPP/A]",
> this is about as preposterous claim as one could possibly imagine. Were
> it not for the efforts of Marty
> Sachs, there would have been no CPP/A 1.0 specification on which to base
> the efforts of the current version. Marty has continued to provide input
> into the development of this latest
> version. To characterize his role in the development of CPP/A as
> "minor" is an insult and wholly inaccurate.

I strongly second Chris' view here.  In my view, to overlook or
downplay Marty's spectacular guidance and leadership in the last 2 years
would be wrong on three grounds.
1.  It is churlish.
2.  It is factually incorrect.
3.  It is irrelevant to the validity of intellectual property claims
against ebXML 1.0.  

Regards  Jamie

~ 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.