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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

legalxml-econtracts message

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

Subject: Re: [legalxml-econtracts] Patent Post and eContracts TC Proposal

Glad to see you getting involved.  Jason - would you please forward to Kelly (via the list) a copy of your presentation? 
Based on this assessment, we should create an agenda item to discuss dealing with the patent language impact.  Given the LegalXML IP language, it would seem we'll need to seek a way to draft around the claims of the patent, but I'm no patent expert and so we'll need to get people involved in the discussion who can guide us. 
Based on the update from the structural markup sub-committee and from Rolly, it sounds as though we are on track for a TC meeting next week.  I'll ask Dr. Leff to post a meeting notice and agenda, accordingly.  Apologies to anybody who signed on last week to discover the meeting had been postponed, as per the notice to our TC list. 
Thanks very much,
 - Dan Greenwood, eContracts TC Chair.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2004 2:57 AM
Subject: Re: [legalxml-econtracts] Patent Post and eContracts TC Proposal

I've taken a look at the claims and yes they will impact the work of this TC as well as the work of work by other OASIS, W3C and other organizations working on standards like LegalXML-Legislative, EPAL, etc.

I've forwarded the information on to several vendors in the Contract Management space, content publishing space, and business rules engine space as well as other solution providers who have worked on compliance systems that create rules around legal and contractual rights as well as some international people who have been working in the field of legal rights expression for many years so that the PTO can be provided with sufficient prior art to try to block the patent.  However, other than 2 specific companies, who have their attorneys looking at the application, I have not gotten an update on their responsive actions.

I read the language to refer to as contractual terms overriding legislation.   Many jurisdictions will allow and enforce contract terms that provide for special arrangements between the parties even though the baseline law may provide otherwise.  For example, most states have statutes governing the award of attorneys' fees, but the contract can provide its own terms with regard to attorneys' fees and have that arrangement enforced rather than the legislation.  You see this alot in choice of law provisions, choice of forum provisions, warranty provisions, arbitration provisions, limitation of recovery, etc.  

I'm coming a little late into the game, but would like to get a copy of the New Orleans presentation and some other documents to get me up-to-speed on where the TC is on its specifications as well so that I might can help close the gap from a resource perspective in contributing from my background as a 15 year attorney who flipped to IT to support the development of systems to enable lawyers in legal departments and law firms.

Kelly D. Ray
Senior Manager
Advisory Services

(home office) 972-881-2420
(voicemail/fax) 214-853-4264
(cell) 972-896-5834

Local Office:
2001 Ross Ave., Suite 1800
Dallas, TX  75201

Home Office:
320 Hawthorne Dr.
Murphy, Tx  75094

"Daniel Greenwood" <dang@mit.edu>

07/02/2004 09:21 AM
Please respond to
"Daniel Greenwood" <dang@mit.edu>

[legalxml-econtracts] Patent Post and eContracts TC Proposal

John Messing posted a link and abstract to a recent patent covering
"legality expression".  I wonder if anybody on the list has heard of this
one or has any idea what it is supposed to cover and how relevent it is (or
isn't) to this TC (or LegalXML in general).  On the topic, I came upon an
interesting phrase after scrolling through the claims at random.  It seems
to provide a mechanism for contracts language to "override" other laws (in
the example given, the contract appears to trump an export law prohibiting
sales of a Monkees episode).  My burning question is: what the heck is that
episode about and why was it prohibited for export?  And also, why would the
PTO grant a patent to technology that enables contracts to trump law when
that violates basic jurisprudence of the USA and other common law countries?
I include the snip from the patent below.

Regarding the TC, I suggest it is time for some closure on the structural
markup proposal.  So, I would like to solicit comments or ideas on how and
when to achieve an votable submission on structural markup.  To get the ball
rolling, here is one idea: that the subcommittee submit to the whole TC
whatever it has agreed upon and whatever it has not (ideally, in the form of
options) and that the TC appoint another group to cobble together a draft
based on that submission.  While the other group will not be as familiar
with the problems and prospects, at least it will have fresh eyes and a
deadline.  The TC as a whole will then have a chance to debate, amend as
needed, and finally vote upon a bounded and complete proposal.

Also - can somebody please e-mail me with an update on the status of the
Requirements Document?  Rolly?  Others?

- Dan Greenwood

[0260] In an exemplary embodiment, a contract that overrides the law, for
example, can be given by:

[0261] "a) Amazon may sell `The Monkees` episodes,

[0262] b) All sales of `The Monkees. The Time Machine` episode outside of
the U.S. are prohibited,

[0263] c) Amazon chooses to sell the episode outside of the U.S."

[0264] Accordingly, it is a policy of Amazon that the clause 212 for selling
"The Monkees" episodes is preferable to the clause 212 for banning sales of
"The Monkees: The Time Machine" episode outside of the U.S. The exemplary
policy/claim combination can be expressed using the exemplary Contract
Expression Language, for example, as given by:

32 <policy> <claim> <clause
licenseIdRef="licenseForSellingTheMonkeesEpsisodes"/> <precede/> <clause
licenseIdRef="interdictForSellingTheM- onkees-TheTimeMachineEpsisode"/>
</claim> +<signer licensePartId="Amazon"> </policy>

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Messing" <jmessing@law-on-line.com>
To: "Dr. Laurence Leff" <D-Leff@wiu.edu>
Cc: <legalxml-econtracts@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Monday, June 21, 2004 11:56 PM
Subject: RE: [legalxml-econtracts] Agenda for upcoming meeting from the
OASIS Legal XML Member Section Electronic Contracts Technical Committee
Secretary (File id: @@2398)

> United States Patent Application 20040049462, Assignee: ContentGuard,
viewable online at the US Patent website
> at
> System and method for specifying and processing legality expressions
> Abstract
> A system and method are provided for specifying a legality expression for
use in a system for processing the
> legality expression. The system and method include providing a legality
expression language, including at least
> one of a duty element specifying an obligation that a principal must
perform an act, a ban element specifying a
> prohibition that a principal must not perform an act, an intent element
specifying an intention that a
> principal wants to perform an act, and a claim element specifying an
assertion that a principal does perform an
> act. The system and method further include interpreting by the system a
legality expression specified using the
> legality expression language.
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: [legalxml-econtracts] Agenda for upcoming meeting from the
> > OASIS Legal XML Member Section Electronic Contracts Technical Committee
> > Secretary (File id: @@2398)
> > From: "Dr. Laurence Leff" <D-Leff@wiu.edu>
> > Date: Mon, June 21, 2004 8:38 pm
> > To: legalxml-econtracts@lists.oasis-open.org
> >
> > Agenda for Conference Call
> >             Electronic Contracts Technical Committee of the
> >                    OASIS Legal XML Member Section
> >
> >                              June 22nd 2004
> >                               18:00 Eastern
> >                 Dial 512 225 3050  - Use 84759# for Pin Code (*)
> >
> >
> > 18:00:00 Tue Jun 22 2004 in America/New_York converts to
> > 22:00:00 Tue Jun 22 2004 in GMT
> >
> > Welcome and Roll Call
> >
> > 1.  Review our requirements document with the goal of reaching closure
> >     and/or determining what changes must be made so that we could vote
> > on it.
> >
> > New Business
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster
> > of the OASIS TC), go to
> >
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of
the OASIS TC), go to

To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/legalxml-econtracts/members/leave_workgroup.php.

The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.

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