security-services message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: [security-services] FW: SOAP Confidentiality and Integrity: N extStep?
- From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker@verisign.com>
- To: Hal Lockhart <hal.lockhart@entegrity.com>,"'blakley@us.ibm.com'" <blakley@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 08:01:23 -0700
.
I don't quite see how they expect to enforce this on others, but
if it is true that MS, IBM, VeriSign and Sun have taken this pledge (and I am
confident HP is on board as well) then it is hard to imagine some other
company with a blocking patent taking a hard line. This could have a
significant impact on the Rights Language TC and XACML.
This was actually the
main complaint Microsoft voiced (in public at the AC meeting a while back)
against the W3C patent policy, the naked RF stance taken there would prevent the
use of a patent to insist on reciprocal rights. What people really want is
RF from the submitters and RF from as many other parties as they
can.
Of course it is always
possible for a patent troll to pop up, particularly a lone 'inventor' who
has no employer with a stake in the success of the specification or a company
whose only asset is some bogus IP. It is quite easy for such a person to
obtain a patent through perjury, given the incompetence of the USPTO and the
lack of public review. There are several examples of people taking IETF RFCs and
filling a patent on the specification long after publication (this happened with
PEM).
I can't say that the
IP situation will ever be perfect, but I think the reciprocal license
requirements come as close as we can.
Phill
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC