RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] IP issues involved in the Entity Seal and in other referenced standards

[John Messing <jmessing@law-on-line.com>]

This is an extremely well presented set of options. My compliments to
the chair.

I prefer a combination of 1, 4 and 5. 

1, when we are not sure about the IP status,  4 when we are, and 5, but
only if we can get it, believe we can, or someone else already has
secured it for the larger community.

I also raise the question whether there is a difference when we refer to
a standard, like the DSS Entity Seal, or actually build upon a standard,
like ebXML or SOAP. If we refer to it, and we are not incorporating it,
it strikes me that our concerns should be lessened.

As for 5, I have heard but never researched, that SOAP is a standard
whose IP is licensed as though it is RF.

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] IP issues involved in the Entity
> Seal and in other referenced standards
> From: "Clarke, Thomas" <tclarke@ncsc.dni.us>
> Date: Wed, May 25, 2005 4:59 am
> To: <john@greacen.net>, "Electronic Court Filing Technical Committeee"
> <legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org>
> 
> I support taking the approach described in #1 below.
> 
>  
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John M. Greacen [mailto:john@greacen.net] 
> Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 8:04 PM
> To: Electronic Court Filing Technical Committeee
> Subject: [legalxml-courtfiling] IP issues involved in the Entity Seal
> and in other referenced standards
> 
>  
> 
> During the last conference call of the Member Section Steering
> Committee, we had a lengthy discussion with OASIS staff concerning the
> issue of "mismatched" TC IP policies.  John Messing identified the issue
> and brought it to our attention.  The Electronic Court Filing TC has
> long taken a very strong position concerning IP interests in our
> specifications - we have flat out stated that we will not include
> material in our specification if there are proprietary IP rights
> attached to it.  Courts should not have to pay royalties for the use of
> a technology standard, we have said.
> 
>  
> 
> The DSS TC does not follow our IP approach.  They use the standard OASIS
> RAND policy - that contributors to a specification must agree to
> reasonable and non-discriminatory licensing of their IP rights in a TC
> standard.  In fact, there have been several statements of IP claims
> filed with the DSS TC concerning the Entity Seal specification.
> 
>  
> 
> This creates another layer of issues concerning the use or requirement
> of the Entity Seal within Court Filing Blue.  The discussion during the
> Steering Committee call suggested a number of avenues that we could
> pursue.  This is my memory and summary of that discussion.  I invite
> other Steering Committee members to amplify or correct the following:
> 
>  
> 
> 1.       We will be citing to a large number of other OASIS standards in
> our Court Filing Blue specification - e.g., ebXML, UBL, Entity Seal.  We
> will make use of the WS-I standards.  We use the GJXDM.  We refer to ISO
> standards.  All of our work derives from the Schema standard of the W3C.
> In fact we have no clue what IP issues might lurk within or might have
> surfaced regarding all those standards.  We do know that all of the
> standards developing bodies responsible for creating them did not follow
> our IP approach, which is clearly not a universal standard.  However, we
> have all agreed to the importance of referencing and using other
> standards for constructing Court Filing Blue.  Modern electronic
> exchange processes depend completely on the use of such specifications.
> It makes no sense to reinvent standards that work perfectly well
> already.  In fact, interoperability would be harmed if we did not use
> them.  The best that we can do in this situation is to acknowledge in
> our specification that we make no representations concerning the IP that
> might pertain to such standards and that users of our specification
> should find out for themselves if they have any concerns.
> 
>  
> 
> 2.       We could review the existence of IP claims against every other
> standard that we use and either disclose such claims or refuse to use
> that standard because of the existence of such claims.  Remember,
> though, that an IP claim against a standard is no more than that - a
> claim.  It may actually be groundless.  And the fact that we do not find
> IP claims is hardly conclusive that there are none.  And we do not have
> the time or the resources for such research.
> 
>  
> 
> 3.       We could fudge on our specification by using language such as
> "use a standard for locking down the complete contents of an electronic
> message using digital signature technology, such as the OASIS DSS TC's
> Entity Seal specification currently in committee draft form."
> 
>  
> 
> 4.       We could make the use of other standards, or of other standards
> that we know have IP claims against them, non-normative with the use of
> language such as "implementers might consider using X"  or "we recommend
> the use of X," with a disclaimer about the IP status of the
> specification.  
> 
>  
> 
> 5.       We could attempt to obtain royalty free licensing commitments
> from the claimants against a particular specification that might figure
> prominently in our work, such as the DSS.  
> 
>  
> 
> I regret to inject yet another troublesome issue into what is already a
> difficult, extensive and complicated agenda.  But it is clearly there
> and we need to take it on.
> 
>  
> 
> I invite comments and suggestions.
> 
>  
> 
> John M. Greacen
> 
> Greacen Associates, LLC
> 
> HCR 78 Box 23
> 
> Regina, New Mexico 87046
> 
> 505-289-2164
> 
> 505-289-2163 (fax)
> 
> 505-780-1450 (cell)
> 
> john@greacen.net