RE: [rights] Sony Licenses InterTrust Patents

["Reddy, Hari" <Hari.Reddy@CONTENTGUARD.COM>]

Title: Sony Licenses InterTrust Patents

Hello Everyone:

There seems to be confusion with regards to the OASIS IPR Policy. I have talked to Karl Best from OASIS who will be on the conference call tomorrow to answer any pertinent questions.

 

It is not the objective of this TC to analyze the business dealings between companies which to me is confidential information and out of scope. I refer people back to the RLTC approved charter (http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/rights/#charter).  We will use the OASIS process of calling for any knowledge of IP relating to the RLTC work. There is also an action item for everyone to research possible IPR holders that are relevant to this work. As I stated in the F2F meeting, during the review of OASIS guidelines, please do not provide any information that you believe to be confidential.

 

With regards to Sony, I have been in contact with representative from Sony and other firms on joining the RLTC. I do not want to officially announce anything out of respect to the potential new members. Many firms are new to OASIS and will need to decide on their level of membership prior to joining the RLTC.

 

I will send the agenda and call in details shortly as soon I get the logistics set up.

 

Regards,

Hari

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Glushko, Bob [mailto:Bob.glushko@commerceone.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2002 11:11 AM
To: 'Gandee, Brad'; Glushko, Bob; rights@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [rights] Sony Licenses InterTrust Patents

Ouch, Brad.

 

I am disturbed by the reaction here. I am not trying to provoke any negative backlash about the subject of patents -- we all know this is a contentious issue. I am just trying to understand what is going on with all these patents. What I want -- and what I believe all of us want - is some predictability so that if we develop a standard we can implement it with confidence that we aren't going to get caught up in some patent wars that prevent us from deploying DRM technology. 

 

Someone DID in fact make some strong claims about the predominance of Content Guard's patents -- I think it was Mike Miron.  I had just (as you report correctly here) pointed out that I thought there were lots of other patents but said that maybe they could all invalidate each other, and Mike said something like "I beg to differ that CG's patents could ever be invalidated" ,  My point is simply that it will be hard to make progress toward a broadly based standard if we don't somehow deal with these rival patents.  I've been told that the Intertrust patent is over a 1000 pages long and includes the kitchen sink and that it was so comprehensive that "it may have been easier for Sony to license it than to read it."  It may not be the job of this TC to deal with the patents but it surely has to be done or we might all be wasting our time here.

 

The reason I asked the questions about Sony is because I would like to know the answers. I'm not an MPEG 21 person so I don' t know if Sony is involved there. I don't know if Sony has licensed the Content Guard patents.  Surely people on this list must know the answers to both questions.  Saying that I should "talk to Sony" isn't very helpful and doesn't get us closer to a standard that we are all willing and able to implement. 

 

So I'll ask the questions again--

 

1) What role, if any, is Sony playing in the MPEG21 activity (or any other standards body with DRM concerns)?

2) Has Sony also licensed the Content Guard patents?

3) Has anyone suggested to Sony that they get involved in the OASIS TC?

 

I especially think that (3) is important. We don't want to hear later that they didn't know this TC existed.

 

bob

 

 

 -----Original Message-----
From: Gandee, Brad [mailto:Brad.Gandee@CONTENTGUARD.COM]
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2002 9:24 AM
To: 'Glushko, Bob'; rights@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [rights] Sony Licenses InterTrust Patents

Bob,

 

"Sony certainly disagrees with some of the statements I heard on Tuesday about no patents other than Content Guard's being relevant to our work."   ContentGuard made no such representation in the meeting Tuesday.  We stated that we believe we have IPR that is relevant to the work of the TC and we did so in compliance with the OASIS policies.  We have said that our IP is not specific to XrML.  The patents were filed before XrML even existed.  We also said that we expect others will come forward at some point and assert their IPR.  In fact you, Bob, said at one point that there appears to be IPR relevant to this work asserted by both ContentGuard and IBM. If someone does come forward and it makes sense to form a patent pool to help facilitate the implementation of the language ContentGuard would seriously consider being part of it and stated this openness before. 

 

Are there other companies that hold IPR's on technology that will be relevant to the implementation of DRM systems in general, absolutely.  Is InterTrust one of those absolutely.  Are there others absolutely.

 

Is it the task of this TC to resolve the IPR issues that may or may not be relevant to anyone's implementation of a DRM system?   No

 

 

As for the issues with respect to Sony, someone should talk to Sony.   

 

Brad