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

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

chairs message

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


Subject: Re: [chairs] Patent license friction...



On Tuesday, May 2, 2006, at 06:57 AM, David RR Webber ((XML)) wrote:

> Robert,
>  
> Thanks for clarifying all this. 
>  
> It might be an idea to add a colour coded column to this table -
>  
>  http://www.oasis-open.org/specs/
>  
> to indicate which ones are RF and which ones require licensing for 
> implementers - as right now everything is lumped together - and people 
> may be forgiven for thinking these being all publicly approved spec's 
> means they are all open and public licensing as well.

RF doesn't mean license-free, it means royalty free.
     jeff
>  
> I understand the need to be able to keep everything in synch'.  I'm 
> not sure that decoupling the IP needs from the spec' however is 
> necessarily turning out in practice to be the best / least 
> confusing approach.  We could always allow adminstrative corrections 
> to specifications directly when IP needs change - that would cover off 
> the points you raise.  That way we have just one place for everything 
> - the specification download.
>  
> One question though - if I sign an agreement - and then subsequently 
> the terms change - do I have to re-sign?  Seems like we probably have 
> to have that covered in the IP assignment clauses that OASIS asks for 
> - so grandfathering can occur.
>  
> DW
>  
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [chairs] Patent license friction...
> From: "Philpott, Robert" <rphilpott@rsasecurity.com>
> Date: Tue, May 02, 2006 9:40 am
> To: "David RR Webber (XML)" <david@drrw.info>, "Wachob,Gabe"
> <gwachob@visa.com>
> Cc: "Chairs OASIS" <chairs@lists.oasis-open.org>, "Frederick Hirsch"
> <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>, "John Messing" <jmessing@law-on-line.com>
>
>  #wmMessageComp st1\:* {behavior:url(#default#ieooui) } #wmMessageComp 
> /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:Wingdings; panose-1:5 0 
> 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;} #wmMessageComp @font-face {font-family:Tahoma; 
> panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;} #wmMessageComp /* Style Definitions */ 
> p.MsoNormal, #wmMessageComp li.MsoNormal, #wmMessageComp div.MsoNormal 
> {margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; font-size:12.0pt; 
> font-family:"Times New Roman";} #wmMessageComp a:link, #wmMessageComp 
> span.MsoHyperlink {color:blue; text-decoration:underline;} 
> #wmMessageComp a:visited, #wmMessageComp span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed 
> {color:purple; text-decoration:underline;} #wmMessageComp p 
> {mso-margin-top-alt:auto; margin-right:0in; 
> mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; margin-left:0in; font-size:12.0pt; 
> font-family:"Times New Roman";} #wmMessageComp span.EmailStyle17 
> {mso-style-type:personal-reply; font-family:Arial; color:navy;} 
> #wmMessageComp @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 
> 1.0in 1.25in;} #wmMessageComp div.Section1 {page:Section1;}
>  
>
> From:David RR Webber (XML) [mailto:david@drrw.info]
> Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 9:19 PM
> To: Wachob,Gabe
> Cc: Chairs OASIS; Frederick Hirsch; John Messing
> Subject: RE: [chairs] Patent license friction...
>
>  
>
> Gabe,
>
>  
>
> As a TC chair I've not had to cover IP on a spec' so I'm a 
> little surprised to find that this is not more formally addressed in 
> the OASIS specifications requirements.
>
>  
>
> I would expect something akin to:
>
>  
>
> a) All licensing requirements clearly stipulated as part of the body 
> of the specifications in a specific document section (beyond just the 
> normal OASIS license blurb).
>
> [RSP] As IP issues can arise at any time, including after the spec has 
> been approved, I feel that putting such info in the spec is not a good 
> idea since it could end up being incomplete unless you rev the spec. 
>  The current document template refers people to the IPR page on the TC 
> web site and, IMO, that should remain the authoritative, single place 
> to go look for IP claims and the required licensing for those claims. 
> If the web site is not clear, especially on the licensing process, TC 
> administration should address it with the IP claimants and get it 
> corrected.  But I personally don’t want to see this stuff going in the 
> specs.
>
>  
>
> b) Addendum entry that references points of contacts for members that 
> are asserting license claims
>
> [RSP] As I said, IMO, the web site is sufficient.
>
>  
>
> c) Reference to a ZIP file stored in the TC documents area that 
> contains a copy of each actionable license from each such member.
>
> [RSP] This MIGHT be a reasonable thing to do, but since companies 
> sometimes change their contract and licensing forms or update license 
> wording, they might not want to do this, and it runs the risk of 
> becoming incomplete as well.  Also, since some IP might be asserted by 
> companies that are not OASIS members, you’d not likely get them to 
> provide such a file to include in the ZIP file.
>
>  
>
> I don’t believe the web site says this, but if other non-member IP 
> claims are known, there probably SHOULD be a place on the TC IPR page 
> to at least mention that and hopefully list who they are.  I’ll also 
> point out that the IPR pages could be organized a bit better.  Just 
> putting some links at the top to each of the individual declarations 
> would be helpful. As it is now, it’s just a set of letters appended to 
> each other and you have to just scroll through them.
>
>  
>
> We could then go one step further and note that members who waive the 
> right to include such entries a) thru c) - are therefore providing a 
> RF license for any relevant IP they may adjudge to be applicable 
> either currently or subsequently later.
>
>  
>
> If this is not the case - I would suggest we ask the BOD to review 
> this urgently and create policy - before we get more IP related 
> specifications out there that are not clearly delimited. 
>
> [RSP] I certainly don’t feel that it’s not clear who has made IP 
> claims on SAML (they’re all on the web page at 
> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/security/ipr.php); the TC process 
> is quite clear about soliciting claim info from members and getting 
> those declarations posted. However, the licensing process in the 
> Fidelity statement IS currently ambiguous. This was actually pointed 
> out to them recently and we’ve been working with them to get that 
> fixed (it’s almost done).  The licensing process for the AOL and RSA 
> claims however are quite clear.  AOL uses a defensive suspension 
> provision (i.e. you don’t have to do anything to get an RF/RAND 
> license, but if you bring any IP claims against them, you lose that 
> license).  The current RSA process states that implementers MUST 
> download/sign/return a license from the RSA web site (link is 
> provided).  Note that this will be changing very shortly as we have 
> submitted a new letter to OASIS in the past few days that changes our 
> process to a defensive suspension provision, ala the AOL declaration. 
>
>  
>
> IMO, if there are TC’s with encumbered specs that don’t have clear 
> info on their TC IPR page for users of the specs, then that is a 
> problem that TC administration should address with the TC.  I don’t 
> think we need additional, multiple places to put the info where the 
> possibility arises for one (i.e. the specs, a ZIP file) to become 
> out-of-date.
>
>  
>
> It’s always a technology adopter’s responsibility to find out whether 
> they are using someone else’s IP, and if so, properly licensing that 
> IP.  The current OASIS process is clear on how to locate that info. 
> OASIS can and should make sure that the info is clear on the licensing 
> process for each claim, but that’s a relatively minor admin issue IMO. 
> Once the claims and licensing process are declared,it’s the 
> responsibility of the IP holder to monitor industry use of their IP 
> and ensure that users are licensed. Otherwise, I believe they run the 
> risk of losing their rights to the IP because they didn’t attempt to 
> defend their claims – obviously IANAL so take this with a grain of 
> saltJ)
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
>
--
Jeff Mischkinsky                          jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com
Director, Web Services              +1 (650) 506-1975 (wk)
Oracle
500 Oracle Parkway
Redwood City, CA 94065



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