RE: [office-comment] Patent back door for Sun? (ODF all versions)

["Alex Brown" <alexb@griffinbrown.co.uk>]

Bob hi
 
> I think the keyword here is "irrevocably", which presumably has a 
> meaning outside of the longevity of Sun's participation in OASIS..

Yes, but that "irrevocably" is scoped only to certain things - hence the
query.

> > If this is the case, is this acceptable to OASIS? I doubt it would 
> > be acceptable to JTC 1 (newly sensitized to IPR issues by events 
> > elsewhere), or to the "FOSS community", who enjoy a distinctly 
> > problematic relationship with Sun.
> 
> I can't speak for the FOSS community other than perhaps to observe 
> that I think the relationship has actually been pretty good.  Of 
> course in reality the community is really many communities, hence the 
> qualifier.  Still I think the insinuation you are hinting at is really

> off target and inappropriate.

Corporations are corporations, and exist to make money without necessary
regard for anything or anybody else; even if good guys are in charge
today they may not be in charge tomorrow - that is why (in my view) it
is necessary to treat all corporations with equal scepticism. The
problems I was alluding to were the recent spats around OpenSolaris,
which are real enough and very pertinent to detail of the current
discussion.

> > What is needed here is a clearly-stated, perpetual waiver of patent 
> > rights from all parties who potentially hold them, that applies to
> all
> > ODF drafts, specifications and standards published by OASIS 
> > embodying those technologies; not a hard-to-parse, qualified and 
> > conditional waiver. DIS 29500 has taught us that such clarity is
necessary.
> >
> 
> Generally I do agree with you  (Not that we ever got the clarity we 
> sought regarding DIS 29500).  But I too am in general sceptical of all

> of these promises, covenants and what have you.  I doubt even if you 
> would get right the clear and unambiguous waiver you have in mind.  I 
> think they are fiendishly difficult to get right.  And they seem
> always qualified in one way or another.   But yes, in general, I will
> always welcome the greatest clarity and lack of ambiguity on this.
> 
> In South Africa at least, such inventions are not patentable subject 
> matter.

Nor in the UK. Probably. The interactions between European and UK law
here are something I don't grok, and don't intend to!

> And Sun do not have any such patents filed (unless they have slipped 
> some in while I was not looking).  It is for this reason more than any

> other, that I do not fear any deficiencies that might exist in their 
> covenant.  Granted that this does not help our US colleagues.
> 
> > Enlightenment / reassurance please!
> 
> Microsoft, in contrast to most other key multinationals in this space,

> and which as you know enjoys a distinctly unproblematic relationship 
> with the FOSS Community

Do you _really_ mean "unproblematic" ;-) ?

> (not to mention JTC 1) , owns something like a 40% share of the entire

> G06F category of patents in SA.  Most of which may not be worth the 
> paper they are printed on, having been obtained without examination at

> around $50 a piece,  but they do give us good reason to be more than a

> little concerned.  We worry more about all the loaded guns than the 
> promises not not to shoot them.

Well (and we risking drifting off-topic a little here) in my view
software patenting is a nonsense. Of the current banking crisis people
are saying now (of toxic debts) "why didn't we see these things were
worthless - it is obvious?". I think we can say now that many IPR
portfolios are worthless, and that is obvious. No corporation is ever
going to profit from a portfolio of junk patents and those that think
they will are living in a fantasy land.

However, in the current climate it is incumbent on us as standardisers
to make standards zones which are free from patenting nonsense; and
possibly to lobby for legislation to back this up with real teeth.

- Alex.