OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

oasis-charter-discuss message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: Re: [oasis-charter-discuss] RAND for Requirements?


hi,
   +1 to patrick's comments plus

1. I simply don't understand the assertion that because some other  
telcom forums are RAND, this will simplify the operation of the TC.  
Only Members of the TC may make "contributions" to the TC. Under OASIS  
rules the member making the contribution is asserting that they have  
the right to make that contribution. The other forums are not making  
the contribution as they are not members of the TC. So i can't quite  
figure out how the ipr mode of the TC has any impact.
Abbie - can you provide a concrete example of how it matters.

2. The assertion made by the proposers of this TC is you don't have to  
worry because no IPR will be created. Note this is simply an  
assertion. It may or may not be true. We don't know. We will find out  
at some time after the TC approves spec and someone tries to use its  
output if they will be faced with a demand to buy a license.
It is very easy to turn the argument around. If no ipr is to be  
created than surely there is no reason why it couldn't be chartered  
under RF on Limited terms. Since no one will be contributing any IPR,  
there won't be anything to license. So why can't the proposers stand  
up and say this in a binding way?

2 notes:
1. I am using the term create IPR here loosely. What is really meant  
is the specs produced by the TC won't have any Essential Claims owned  
by the members of the TC which would be subject to licensing  
requirements by the owner of the Essential Claim.

2. I am NOT saying that a RAND TC is always inappropriate. If in fact  
the proposers of a TC do think there will be Essential Claims that  
read on the specs produced by the TC, and that the owners should be  
allowed to charge for those licenses, then it might be appropriate.

cheers,
   jeff

On Nov 19, 2008, at 6:28 PM, Patrick Durusau wrote:

> Abbie,
>
> Abbie Barbir wrote:
>> Patrick
>> RAND is a common mode of operation for Telecom industry.
>> This has nothing to do with marketing, it only has to do with  
>> allowing
>> Telecom providers to operate in SDO using the same environment that  
>> they
>> are used to.
>>
>>
> RAND is an *uncommon* mode at OASIS, although clearly permitted.
>
> Perhaps we have different definitions of *marketing* if "allowing  
> Telecom providers to operate in SDO using the same environments that  
> they are used to" isn't marketing.
>
> Quite frankly I would not deceive even a Telecom provider in order  
> to get them to participate in OASIS.
>
> The work product of the TC appears to not be subject to RAND in any  
> meaningful way.
>
> If it were, that would have been your first response.
>
> So, let's simply tell the Telecom providers the truth, that RAND is  
> meaningless for requirements and by extension for this TC.
>
> Unless there is some problem with truth telling as a strategy?
>
> Hope you are having a great day!
>
> Patrick
>
>
>
>> Have a nice day
>> Regards
>> Abbie
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Patrick Durusau [mailto:patrick@durusau.net] Sent: Wednesday,  
>> November 19, 2008 7:25 PM
>> To: oasis-charter-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org
>> Subject: [oasis-charter-discuss] RAND for Requirements?
>>
>> Greetings!
>>
>> The reasons given for RAND for this TC:
>>
>> Orit Levin:
>>
>>> 1. This TC is NOT going to produce any technical specifications.
>>> 2. This TC is about gathering requirements backed up by use cases  
>>> and scenarios and their applicability to existing technologies.
>>> 3. This TC is about bringing as many as possible telecoms and  
>>> vendors working in the Telecom area who feel most comfortable with  
>>> RAND to contribute to the discussion.
>>>
>> and, Abbie Barbir:
>>
>>
>>> Plus I would add that we will be dealing with other SDO such as TM  
>>> Forum, ITU-T etc.. and  working closely with them to get  
>>> requirements from their documents. These SDO operate under RAND  
>>> and as such this make the flow of information between the OASIS  
>>> SOA TC and the other SDO more fluid.
>>>
>> Seem very unpersuasive to me.
>>
>> First, I can't say that I am familiar with the practice of treating
>> requirements as IPR. Can someone point me to known legal authority  
>> for
>> the notion that a requirement is subject to some vendor's IPR?  
>> (Granting
>> that if I publish a book with a list of requirements, my statement of
>> the requirement may be copyrighted, i.e., "Text must be presented  
>> in a
>> *bold* font." (copyright Patrick Durusau 2008) but the substance of  
>> the
>> requirement itself, that is that users want to use *bold* text, I  
>> don't
>> think is subject to any IPR claim.)
>>
>> Second, from what has been said the TC doesn't intend to produce
>> anything that is subject to any known IPR claim, thereby rendering  
>> RAND
>> rather meaningless.
>>
>> Third, following up on Abbie's comment, is making this TC operate  
>> under
>> RAND a marketing strategy to make it more attractive to vendors who
>> aren't advised well enough to realize that requirements are not  
>> subject
>> to IPR? Or who take false comfort from committees that operate under
>> RAND?
>>
>> While I am all for marketing OASIS as much as the next person I think
>> offering meaningless RAND on material that cannot be the subject of  
>> IPR
>> is a very bad marketing strategy. What do we say to those vendors who
>> falsely took our word that the requirements produced by this TC were
>> subject to RAND? Some dreaded FOSS group implements technology to  
>> meet
>> those requirements more cheaply and efficiently than commercial  
>> vendors.
>>
>> Then what do we say? No, let's be honest up front with all our  
>> members,
>> even commercial vendors.
>>
>> BTW, I think anyone who charters a TC under RAND should have to  
>> specify
>> what IP is being contributed under what conditions so that OASIS  
>> members
>> can make a determination as to whether they wish to participate or  
>> not. As far as I can tell at this point, neither Microsoft nor  
>> Nortel have
>> any IP as traditionally understood to contribute to this TC. So,  
>> why the
>> RAND? (Other than for false advertising purposes.)
>>
>> Hope everyone is having a great day!
>>
>> Patrick
>>
>> --
>> Patrick Durusau
>> patrick@durusau.net
>> Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34
>> Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 (Topic Maps)
>> Editor, OpenDocument Format TC (OASIS), Project Editor ISO/IEC 26300
>> Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps)
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
>> generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
>> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/ 
>> my_workgroups.php
>>
>>
>
> -- 
> Patrick Durusau
> patrick@durusau.net
> Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34
> Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 (Topic Maps)
> Editor, OpenDocument Format TC (OASIS), Project Editor ISO/IEC 26300
> Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps)
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php

--
Jeff Mischkinsky			          		jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com
Director, Oracle Fusion Middleware 				+1(650)506-1975
	and Web Services Standards           			500 Oracle Parkway, M/S 2OP9
Oracle								Redwood Shores, CA 94065










[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]