Re: RE: [spectools] IPR statements and OASIS specs

[dcpleland@ftnetwork.com]

Hi Karl;

OK with me.  That was me as a lawyer, erring on the side of caution, and anticipating any problems that might be waiting to come down the pike at us.

Let's go with Eduardo's suggestion.

Regards,
David L
************************************************************
karl.best@oasis-open.org wrote on 5/2/02 1:42:17 PM
************************************************************
David:

Thanks for your valuable input on the IPR issue, which I will take into
account as OASIS staff and Board are talking about IP issues. But it's a
bit off topic when we're talking about spec templates :-)

Let's go with Eduardo's last suggestion for now, then if/when the Board
refines our IP policy and process we'll modify the boilerplate statment
on the template to match. Currently the OASIS IP Policy says that IP
encumbrances must be identified and stored on the web page, so if the
template points to the web page that is sufficient.

</karl>
=================================================================
Karl F. Best
OASIS - Director, Technical Operations
+1 978.667.5115 x206
karl.best@oasis-open.org  http://www.oasis-open.org


> -----Original Message-----
> From: dcpleland@ftnetwork.com [mailto:dcpleland@ftnetwork.com]
> Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 3:24 AM
> To: eduardo.gutentag@sun.com; karl.best@oasis-open.org
> Cc: spectools@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [spectools] IPR statements and OASIS specs
>
>
> Hi all;
>
> I agree with this, thanks Eduardo for stating it well.
>
> I should say at the outset that I am an attorney (retired
> MASS #547524) and that I didn't want to weighin like 'the
> lawyer', so I hung back from this a bit.  Sorry if that was
> inappropriate.
>
> Due to the gravity of the IBM lawsuit, and the fact that it
> arose when there was no forewarning of the probability that
> there wouldd be claims to be made, and further due to the
> expense of maintaining a defense to such law suits now and in
> the future, I believe that it is in the best interests of
> OASIS-Open to immediately institute some very strong
> precautions.  My recommendations in a general sense, follow.
>
> I think that, in light of the imponderability of patent
> issues, which by their very nature may be latent [not
> apparent] in the work, that the IPR notification should be 1)
> blanket, across all OASIS-open work, 2) universal, that it
> applies to all TCs, and every part of each work of each TC,
> and generalised, that it is worded in such a way that the
> legal applicability of the IPR statement to the work for
> which it is being applied.
>
> Additionally, I believe that each IPR should be formally
> approved, in writing, at each holding body (company) by
> either 1) a formal, minuted vote of the Board of Directors,
> or 2) an officer of the holding body duly authorised to grant
> such permission, or 3) the duly authorised counsel for the
> holding body.  The written documents should be lodged with
> the duly authorised person at OASIS-Open.
>
> Regards,
> David Leland
> ************************************************************
> eduardo.gutentag@sun.com wrote on 5/1/02 11:36:54 PM
> ************************************************************
>
> This kind of boilerplate (BTW, I agree wholeheartedly that
> there should
> be boilerplate in the status section) creates two classes of specs,
> those that carry the boilerplate because it's true that one or more
> patents have been disclosed, and those that don't carry the
> boilerplate.
> Which class to choose may be subject to human error; further, one that
> belongs to the second may have to change suddenly to the first, even
> during voting freeze...I therefore propose that the boilerplate be
> similar to the second one that Eve proposed, with a couple of
> modifications:
>
> "For information on wether any patents have been disclosed
> that may be
> essential to implementing this specification, and any offers
> of patent
> licensing terms, please refer to the Intellectual Property
> Rights section
> of the xxxTC web page (http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/xxxTC)"
>
> This boilerplate would of course be mandatory, not optional.
>
>
> "Karl F. Best" wrote:
> >
> > Eve:
> >
> > I agree that the IP statement should stay on the web page,
> but a pointer
> > should be in the spec document. Your suggestion is just
> about right for
> > length and content, but since this is a template we could
> make it more
> > generic:
> >
> > "One or more patents or other claims of intellectual property rights
> > have been disclosed whose use may be essential to implementing this
> > specification. See the Intellectual Property Rights section of the
> > Technical Committee's web page for disclosure of these
> patents and any
> > offers of patent licensing terms."
> >
> > This would be an optional statement of course, as not all specs will
> > have IP claims.
> >
> > </karl>
> > =================================================================
> > Karl F. Best
> > OASIS - Director, Technical Operations
> > +1 978.667.5115 x206
> > karl.best@oasis-open.org  http://www.oasis-open.org
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Eve L. Maler [mailto:eve.maler@sun.com]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 7:00 PM
> > > To: spectools@lists.oasis-open.org
> > > Subject: [spectools] IPR statements and OASIS specs
> > >
> > >
> > > I'm just trying to figure out how to alert readers of the
> SAML specs
> > > about the patents that have been disclosed on SAML.  What do
> > > you folks
> > > think of the following suggestions for boilerplate text?
> If you like
> > > them, Norm and I could put this in the sample docs...
> > >
> > >       Eve
> > >
> > > -------- Original Message --------
> > > Subject: Re: [security-services] RSA Security IPR statement
> > > Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 18:56:25 -0400
> > > From: "Eve L. Maler" <eve.maler@sun.com>
> > > To: "Philpott, Robert" <rphilpott@rsasecurity.com>
> > >
> > > Philpott, Robert wrote:
> > > ...
> > >  > Would it be cleaner to just stick it in
> > >  > an appendix of each document?
> > >  >
> > >  > Just a thought... In case you haven't already done this,
> > > perhaps an
> > > appendix
> > >  > for IPR statements should be in the OASIS template you
> > > built. I'd hate to
> > >  > clutter up the documents with full IPR letters from any
> > > and all companies
> > >  > with IP - fortunately SAML's just got this one.  The best
> > > solution in my
> > >  > mind would be to have a brief, standard boilerplate
> > > statement approved by
> > >  > OASIS in the appendix and reference back to the
> > > appropriate committee web
> > >  > page at the OASIS site.  Is this what OASIS is thinking
> > > also or are they
> > >  > sticking in the entire statement from the company?
> > >
> > > I don't know if they had really gotten that far in their
> thinking.  I
> > > think it's probably not a good idea to put the actual text of the
> > > letter/statement in the spec, for more than just space
> reasons.  For
> > > example, RSAS changed its text once already, and it's
> free to do so
> > > again.  Also, new statements might be made by other
> companies later,
> > > even after SAML becomes an OASIS Standard.  So it's
> probably best to
> > > have standard boilerplate, as you say, with a link.
> > >
> > > The next question is where to put the boilerplate.  There are two
> > > obvious possibilities: an appendix and the Status on the
> > > title page.  If
> > > the boilerplate is fairly modest in size, I think the Status
> > > section is
> > > best, since IPR concerns can materially affect the status of a
> > > specification.  Here is the kind of text I can see putting in:
> > >
> > >     "One or more patents have been disclosed whose use may be
> > > essential
> > > to implementing this specification. See the Intellectual
> > > Property Rights
> > > section of the Security Services web page
> > > (http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/security) for
> > > disclosure of these
> > > patents and any offers of patent licensing terms."
> > >
> > > Oh, and in the case of specs for which no patents have
> been disclosed
> > > yet, there should perhaps still be something like this:
> > >
> > >     "See the Intellectual Property Rights section of the xxx
> > > TC web page
> > > (http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/xxxTC) for
> information on the
> > > disclosure of any patents that may be essential to
> implementing this
> > > specification and any offers of patent licensing terms."
> > >
> > > This seems small enough for the Status section.  What do
> you think?
> > >
> > > (By the way, I note that the first paragraph in the
> Notices appendix
> > > talks about getting IPR information, but it's too general and too
> > > boilerplate-ish to really convey much to the casual reader...)
> > >
> > >       Eve
> > >
> > > --
> > > Eve Maler                                    +1 781 442 3190
> > > Sun Microsystems XML Technology Center   eve.maler @ sun.com
> > >
> > >
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> > > manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
> > >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> > manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
>
> --
> Eduardo Gutentag               |         e-mail:
> eduardo.gutentag@Sun.COM
> XML Technology Center          |         Phone:  (510) 986-3651
> Sun Microsystems Inc.          |
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> _____________________________________
> Get your free e-mail account at  http://www.ftnetwork.com
>
> Visit the web site of the Financial Times at  http://www.ft.com
>
>


----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>


___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Get your free e-mail account at  http://www.ftnetwork.com

Visit the web site of the Financial Times at  http://www.ft.com