[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: [ebxml-msg] FW: [ebxml-cppa] IBM patent disclosure
I believe that the "short delay" will be sufficient to pull the spec out of
the current approval cycle and move it to the next quarter.
*************************************************************************************
Martin W. Sachs
IBM T. J. Watson Research Center
P. O. B. 704
Yorktown Hts, NY 10598
914-784-7287; IBM tie line 863-7287
Notes address: Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM
Internet address: mwsachs @ us.ibm.com
*************************************************************************************
"Anders W. Tell"
<anderst@toolsmit To: Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org
hs.se> cc:
Subject: Re: [ebxml-msg] FW: [ebxml-cppa] IBM patent disclosure
04/24/2002 11:06
AM
Martin W Sachs wrote:
> We don't require a CPA in messaging. We expended a great deal of time
and
> effort to make sure that the MSG spec is correct while not requiring a
CPA
By looking at some CPPA related passages in the v2 spec it is unclear
whether MSH is not dependend
on CPP and that there are no spillover effects. maybe there are more
passages that need to be
cleaned up.
V2c section 1.2.2 line 353
"An ebMS-compliant MSH shall respect the in-force agreements between itself
and any other ebMS
compliant MSH with which it communicates. In broad terms, these
agreements are expressed as
Collaboration Protocol Agreements (CPA). This specification identifies the
information that must be
agreed. It does not specify the method or form used to create and maintain
these agreements. It is
assumed, in practice, the actual content of the contracts may be contained
in
initialization/configuration files, databases, or XML documents complying
with the ebXML
Collaboration Protocol Profile and Agreement Specification [ebCPP]. "
.
> Whether you want to advise users to configure their systems manually
> instead of using a CPA is an entirely different question.
Im sure you are aware of more ways than CPPA to configure a system and Im
sure that more
technologies will soon follow.
>
> It won't serve anyone well to pull V2 back from the OASIS approval
process
> at this point if that's what you have in mind.
I agee we with you that it may not serve IBM well if V2 is pulled back for
cleaning, but in relation
to global ecommerce for SME's it may be of great and future benefit. The
risk of doing business has
increased the last week. Not all small and medium sized vendors producing
software for SME's have an
exact knowledge of US patent law , have team of lawyers and years of court
experiance.
Im not advocating stopping V2 but a short delay to change any sections that
may cause future problems.
Regards
Anders
> Regards,
> Marty
>
>
*************************************************************************************
>
> Martin W. Sachs
> IBM T. J. Watson Research Center
> P. O. B. 704
> Yorktown Hts, NY 10598
> 914-784-7287; IBM tie line 863-7287
> Notes address: Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM
> Internet address: mwsachs @ us.ibm.com
>
*************************************************************************************
>
>
>
> David Fischer
> <david@drummondgr To: ebXML Msg
<ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org>
> oup.com> cc:
> Subject: [ebxml-msg] FW:
[ebxml-cppa] IBM patent disclosure
> 04/24/2002 09:49
> AM
>
>
>
>
>
> We need to seriously consider whether we require CPPA in Messaging. If
IBM
> requires a license to use CPPA, that could easily transfer to Messaging
> based
> upon this requirement.
>
> Regards,
>
> David Fischer
> Drummond Group.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Fischer [mailto:david@drummondgroup.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 8:45 AM
> To: ebxml-cppa@lists.oasis-open.org
> Cc: Rik Drummond
> Subject: RE: [ebxml-cppa] IBM patent disclosure
>
>
> I logged on this morning to vote yes on the specification. Now I am
going
> to
> abstain.
>
> I gather that the very existence of this technology is what IBM claims
and
> there
> is nothing we can change in the specification to obviate IBMs claim --
they
> claim the whole document even though they had a minor role in developing
> it.
>
> IBM is going to require anyone who uses CPPA to obtain a license? This
> makes
> IBM the owner of CPPA! Marty has assured us that the cost will be zero,
> yet IBM
> is not willing to make this assurance in writing. Rest assured then, the
> cost
> will not always be zero.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> David Fischer
> Drummond Group.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin W Sachs [mailto:mwsachs@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 6:09 PM
> To: ebxml-cppa@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: [ebxml-cppa] IBM patent disclosure
>
>
>
> Regarding the question in the minutes of whether someone must apply for a
> license for the IBM patents, I have checked on the answer. The answer is
> yes. If a company believes that their CPPA implementation may be covered
> by the IBM patents, the procedure is to apply to IBM for a license.
There
> will be no fee for the license.
>
> Regards,
> Marty
>
>
********************************************************************************
>
> *****
>
> Martin W. Sachs
> IBM T. J. Watson Research Center
> P. O. B. 704
> Yorktown Hts, NY 10598
> 914-784-7287; IBM tie line 863-7287
> Notes address: Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM
> Internet address: mwsachs @ us.ibm.com
>
********************************************************************************
>
> *****
> ----- Forwarded by Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM on 04/19/2002 07:03 PM -----
>
>
--
/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
/ Anders W. Tell , Financial Toolsmiths AB /
/ <anderst@toolsmiths.se>,<www.toolsmiths.se> /
/ Open ebXML Laboratory: <www.openebxmllab.org> /
/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC