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.
Thanks, Kelly D. Ray Senior
Manager Advisory Services PricewaterhouseCoopers
(home office)
972-881-2420 (voicemail/fax) 214-853-4264 (cell)
972-896-5834 kelly.ray@us.pwc.com
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> |
|
To
| <legalxml-econtracts@lists.oasis-open.org>
|
cc
|
|
Subject
| [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?
Thanks, - 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)
> NOTICE OF
POSSIBLE PATENT CLAIMS > > United States Patent Application
20040049462, Assignee: ContentGuard, viewable online at the US Patent
website >
at > > http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2F netahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=20040049462 .PGNR.&OS=DN/20040049462&RS=DN/20040049462 > >
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 >
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/legalxml-econtracts/members/lea ve_workgroup.php. > >
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/lea ve_workgroup.php. >
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.
|