|
Rich,
I agree that this is a matter to be coordinated
across
several stakeholders.
We started by realizing that many
implementers
of OASIS specifications include open source solutions
and licensing.
Understanding how an OASIS TC can properly
position
its specifications so as not to preclude open
source
communities is one need.
Coupled to that is the need where the specification
itself
needs to preclude any kind of IPR licensing -
this comes
about where an open community or government
initiative
has created the foundation work and is stipulating
that
no IPR may be contained in it.
In such cases they may wish to buttress their
position
by ensuring that no claims may come out of the
original
participants - and obviously applying for defensive
patents
is not an option for them.
I believe that the open source community can
develop
something here in tandem for OASIS. As to
who
maintains it - clearly there are many choices -
we
shall have to see how that evolves.
Thanks, DW
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 1:57
PM
Subject: Re: [chairs] Of un-patents and
un-inventions
There seems to be a couple of
issues that are getting intertwined in this discussion.
My understanding of the original intent was a desire to
provide means by which implementers of OASIS standards would have the freedom
to implement specs without licensing issues. My understanding of the patent
process is that this is accomplished by openly publishing the idea.
Considering the millions of ways to publish such information (including the
OASIS document repository, when the sharing bits are set correctly), I would
ask what additional benefit the proposed facility would have?
The secondary issue which seems to have
taken over the thread relates to preventing patents from being issued; in
particular, helping provide searchable prior art for patent examiners. I don't
see how providing such a facility falls within the scope of the OASIS
consortium. There may be communities that participate in OASIS efforts that
would find such a facility valuable, but would not the facility (and all the
issues with defining and managing it) more naturally fall within one or more
of those communities?
Rich
Thompson
OASIS WSRP TC Chair
| "David Webber \(XML\)"
<david@drrw.info>
03/15/05 12:45 PM
|
Please respond
to
"David Webber \(XML\)" |
|
|
To
| "Wachob, Gabe"
<gwachob@visa.com>, "Chairs OASIS"
<chairs@lists.oasis-open.org>
|
|
cc
|
|
|
Subject
| Re: [chairs] Of
un-patents and un-inventions |
|
Gabe,
The earlier efforts had somewhat different focuses -
and
also were disconnected - not related to a specific
community - and
especially a community with
direct linkage to the PTO in the way OASIS
members
are.
I also am seeing that the need is the learn from
the
past efforts - and particularly to produce a
template with wording
and scope that does
directly tie it to the patent process and make
it
relevant.
Of course that is easy to say - difficult to do.
However -
we are travelling down this path - and
I expect to be able to draft
something shortly
that can be peer-reviewed for
effectiveness.
Wording is one thing, another is build
relevance
through community awareness. If noone
chooses to do this
- of course the USPTO can
simply ignore it. Also if patent
applications
occur that reference the resource site - then
the USPTO
will have to look at it and know
about it.
Clearly we have to do
more and different from
what has already gone before. Creative use
of
carrots and sticks is anticipated!
Thanks, DW
-----
Original Message -----
From: "Wachob, Gabe"
<gwachob@visa.com>
To: "David Webber (XML)" <david@drrw.info>;
"Chairs OASIS"
<chairs@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March
15, 2005 12:05 PM
Subject: RE: [chairs] Of un-patents and
un-inventions
David-
Can you explain to me how your proposal is
different than sites
(and there are several, last time I looked) like the
one you mention?
Why is the PTO going to pay any more attention to this
effort? While I
do think it would be interesting for OASIS pursue something
like this,
I'd hate for it to be ignored just like previous
efforts.
-Gabe
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
David Webber (XML) [mailto:david@drrw.info]
> Sent: Monday, March 14,
2005 8:19 AM
> To: Chairs OASIS
> Subject: Re: [chairs] Of
un-patents and un-inventions
>
> Elysa,
>
> I'm open
to better suggestions!
>
> BTW - seems like the patent approach to
this is
> http://www.researchdisclosure.com/
> but again this IMHO
falls into the same bear trap we are
> trying to avoid -
> eg
-
> this just sucks you down into the morass that is the USPTO -
>
we're trying to
> ensure
> we stay away from all
that.
>
> I've had a suggest of other terms like "open invention",
or
> "freely reusable
> idea".
>
> I also think we
need "obvious and self-evident" in there too....
>
> Thanks,
DW
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Elysa Jones"
<ejones@warningsystems.com>
> To: "David Webber (XML)"
<david@drrw.info>; "Chairs OASIS"
>
<chairs@lists.oasis-open.org>
> Sent: Monday, March 14, 2005 10:57
AM
> Subject: Re: [chairs] Of un-patents and
un-inventions
>
>
> > Except for the name, I think this
is the best idea I have
> heard yet wrt
> IPR!
> >
Cheers,
> > Elysa Jones, EM-TC
>
>
>
>
>
|