Hi all,
I fully agree with Abbie on this topic. Many
Telco companies (in particular telco vendors) will not participate in non-RAND
based SDA. The OASIS TMS was created with the specific purpose to create/adapt
SOA specs for the benefit of Telcos (Service Providers). But few Telco vendors
are lured to participate in OASUS, and even fewer Operators are participating
in OASIS. Operators may not increase their participation regardless –
frequently they rely on their Telco vendors/suppliers to participate instead of
themselves. As a result, I think having non-RAND IPR for TCs affiliated with
OASIS TMS will neither not attract significant participation from Telco, not
will they attract significant contributions from Telcos – and that would
likely defeat the purpose.
Best regards,
Michael
From: Barbir,
Abbie (CAR:1A14) [mailto:ABBIEB@nortel.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008
6:29 AM
To: Jeff Mischkinsky; Patrick
Durusau
Cc:
oasis-charter-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE:
[oasis-charter-discuss] RAND for Requirements?
Jeff,
See inline
Regards
Abbie
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Mischkinsky [mailto:jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 9:52 PM
To: Patrick Durusau
Cc: Barbir, Abbie (CAR:1A14); oasis-charter-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org
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.
------- Abbie
So are you assuming that we will have distinct members. Companies send people
to more than one SDO and they can contribute per as make sense to move the work
in harmony. Having a common IPR mode enables better cooperation and involvement
by Telecom companies. Most telecom companies will not participate in a non-RAND
TC. In addition, we can have Laision arrangements where comon points can be
discussed.
------------------------------------
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?
------- Abbie
Jeff, I really do not undertand your logic here. You seem to forget that most
telecom related work in done in RAND bodies.
Are you saying that if the work is not done on RF on limited terms you will not
get a dial tone when you lift your receiver???
----------------------------------------
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.
------- Abbie
Jeff, not every RAND work lead to royalties. I
am glad that you say that OASIS can be inclusive. Have a nice day.
------------------------------------------------------
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
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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