[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] IP issues involved in the Entity Seal and in other referenced standards
This is an extremely well presented set of options. My compliments to the chair. I prefer a combination of 1, 4 and 5. 1, when we are not sure about the IP status, 4 when we are, and 5, but only if we can get it, believe we can, or someone else already has secured it for the larger community. I also raise the question whether there is a difference when we refer to a standard, like the DSS Entity Seal, or actually build upon a standard, like ebXML or SOAP. If we refer to it, and we are not incorporating it, it strikes me that our concerns should be lessened. As for 5, I have heard but never researched, that SOAP is a standard whose IP is licensed as though it is RF. > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] IP issues involved in the Entity > Seal and in other referenced standards > From: "Clarke, Thomas" <tclarke@ncsc.dni.us> > Date: Wed, May 25, 2005 4:59 am > To: <john@greacen.net>, "Electronic Court Filing Technical Committeee" > <legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org> > > I support taking the approach described in #1 below. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: John M. Greacen [mailto:john@greacen.net] > Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 8:04 PM > To: Electronic Court Filing Technical Committeee > Subject: [legalxml-courtfiling] IP issues involved in the Entity Seal > and in other referenced standards > > > > During the last conference call of the Member Section Steering > Committee, we had a lengthy discussion with OASIS staff concerning the > issue of "mismatched" TC IP policies. John Messing identified the issue > and brought it to our attention. The Electronic Court Filing TC has > long taken a very strong position concerning IP interests in our > specifications - we have flat out stated that we will not include > material in our specification if there are proprietary IP rights > attached to it. Courts should not have to pay royalties for the use of > a technology standard, we have said. > > > > The DSS TC does not follow our IP approach. They use the standard OASIS > RAND policy - that contributors to a specification must agree to > reasonable and non-discriminatory licensing of their IP rights in a TC > standard. In fact, there have been several statements of IP claims > filed with the DSS TC concerning the Entity Seal specification. > > > > This creates another layer of issues concerning the use or requirement > of the Entity Seal within Court Filing Blue. The discussion during the > Steering Committee call suggested a number of avenues that we could > pursue. This is my memory and summary of that discussion. I invite > other Steering Committee members to amplify or correct the following: > > > > 1. We will be citing to a large number of other OASIS standards in > our Court Filing Blue specification - e.g., ebXML, UBL, Entity Seal. We > will make use of the WS-I standards. We use the GJXDM. We refer to ISO > standards. All of our work derives from the Schema standard of the W3C. > In fact we have no clue what IP issues might lurk within or might have > surfaced regarding all those standards. We do know that all of the > standards developing bodies responsible for creating them did not follow > our IP approach, which is clearly not a universal standard. However, we > have all agreed to the importance of referencing and using other > standards for constructing Court Filing Blue. Modern electronic > exchange processes depend completely on the use of such specifications. > It makes no sense to reinvent standards that work perfectly well > already. In fact, interoperability would be harmed if we did not use > them. The best that we can do in this situation is to acknowledge in > our specification that we make no representations concerning the IP that > might pertain to such standards and that users of our specification > should find out for themselves if they have any concerns. > > > > 2. We could review the existence of IP claims against every other > standard that we use and either disclose such claims or refuse to use > that standard because of the existence of such claims. Remember, > though, that an IP claim against a standard is no more than that - a > claim. It may actually be groundless. And the fact that we do not find > IP claims is hardly conclusive that there are none. And we do not have > the time or the resources for such research. > > > > 3. We could fudge on our specification by using language such as > "use a standard for locking down the complete contents of an electronic > message using digital signature technology, such as the OASIS DSS TC's > Entity Seal specification currently in committee draft form." > > > > 4. We could make the use of other standards, or of other standards > that we know have IP claims against them, non-normative with the use of > language such as "implementers might consider using X" or "we recommend > the use of X," with a disclaimer about the IP status of the > specification. > > > > 5. We could attempt to obtain royalty free licensing commitments > from the claimants against a particular specification that might figure > prominently in our work, such as the DSS. > > > > I regret to inject yet another troublesome issue into what is already a > difficult, extensive and complicated agenda. But it is clearly there > and we need to take it on. > > > > I invite comments and suggestions. > > > > John M. Greacen > > Greacen Associates, LLC > > HCR 78 Box 23 > > Regina, New Mexico 87046 > > 505-289-2164 > > 505-289-2163 (fax) > > 505-780-1450 (cell) > > john@greacen.net
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]