RE: [ebxml-cppa] [PLEASE READ BY FRIDAY] Disentangling CPPA Specification Approval from any IPR Position endorsement.

["Kartha, Neelakantan" <N_Kartha@stercomm.com>]

I have a couple of questions/remarks about Dale's proposal. I hope these remarks will lead to  some  further discussion on Friday.

 

1.  If we take the stance that the scope of  the TC  be confined only technical matters,  why are we even considering making a statement about IP (something clearly beyond the scope of the TC)? In particular, by including a statement about retraction of the specification, are we not implicitly stating that IPR issues are something that we are serious about? Will this statement (if we decide to go that route) be a part of the specification or something separate?

 

2. Does the technical committee have the authority to withdraw a specification once it has been submitted for approval?

 

3. In addition to the points that Dale noted regarding the lack of clarity of IBM's IPR statement,  I would like to point out the following also: The IPR statement makes no mention of whether it can be retracted or changed in the future.

 

 

Kartha

-----Original Message-----
From: Dale Moberg [mailto:dmoberg@cyclonecommerce.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 11:24 AM
To: Cppa (E-mail)
Subject: [ebxml-cppa] [PLEASE READ BY FRIDAY] Disentangling CPPA Specification Approval from any IPR Position endorsement.

The current motions and mail ballots were intended, IMO, to address
the question of whether the 2.0 specification should be approved
by the TC and whether the specification should be moved forward
for possible approval by OASIS. We clearly were aiming at a June
initiation of the OASIS process. That would result in an October
vote within OASIS. To delay entering the OASIS voting process
would push the consideration of the specification to January 2003,
beyond the current lifetime of the group. It would might adversely
impact member companies hoping to release products
based on the 2.0 specification prior to 2003.

The voting is now known to also involve polling the membership on
whether they are satisfied with the current IPR disclosure statements
pertaining to the specification. Members are tacitly being asked to use
the current ballot to make some statement about the current IPR
situation, and in particular the vague language of the second IBM
statement.

I have asked the membership to consider dividing these issues.
There is nothing this TC can do with its specification to meet objections
to language in an IPR disclosure statement. If the IPR terms are unacceptable
in the market, the specifications will meet their fate and we will know
why that happened. If we prevent the specification from being approved,
we simply make this TC return to its work with no way to fulfill its goal.
In such a situation, I would urge reconsideration of whether the charter
of this group can be fulfilled and whether we should spend our energies
elsewhere. I believe that this remark reveals why it is unfair to
try to exploit negative votes on specifications to try to achieve
some other extraneous goals or play a tactical role in
lobbying schemes.

I do not, however, wish to prevent members dissatisfied with
the IPR proposals from making a statement. We are therefore
considering how to place the collective consensual
stamp of approval of this technical
committee on a resolution or statement that expresses
a shared view on the current IPR statement.

I am putting the following language forth for your discussion.
Consider particularly the statement about intended retraction
of the specification from OASIS consideration if current
IPR language is not clarified.

Thanks, Dale Moberg

==============================================================

The OASIS ebXML CPPA TC membership has requested that holders of
patents that may be required for the implementation of the standard,
disclose such patents to OASIS and to the ebXML CPPA TC. One such disclosure
has been obtained from IBM,
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ebxml-cppa/documents/ibm_ipr_statement.shtml

The OASIS ebXML CPPA TC finds this disclosure to be
unclear in its intent to ask for "reciprocity," and overly restrictive
in invoking limitations to CPPA specifications by specific version numbers.
The ebXML CPPA TC would also like clear language allowing the transfer
of rights to derivative works as found within typical open source
licensing and/or copyright frameworks.

The ebXML CPPA TC has not undertaken any patent searches
in order to identify which, or whether any,
patents may apply to its specifications. Nevertheless, it is
the intent of this TC that its specification be freely implementable
by commercial software developers, end users,
and the open source communities.

[Is this idea also to be included?]
The ebXML CPPA TC, by its approval of its
specification, does not recommend
that implementers of the OASIS CPPA
functionality accept announced procedures
or assume applicability of IPR claims, because
the ebXML CPPA TC takes no position on the validity of any
claim or any patent rights that have been or may be disclosed.

[ Is this something we endorse?]
The ebXML CPPA TC believes that the basic idea of exchanging shared
configuration information in order to deploy distributed processing
systems has a long history, and that there exists much
prior art for exchange and use of this information.

[Retraction announced]
If the current IPR statement has not been clarified sufficiently
by the October 2002 OASIS voting period, it is the intention
of this Technical Committee to withdraw its specification from
the OASIS approval process.