Re: [ubl-dev] UBL and proposed IPR policy changes

["David RR Webber" <david@drrw.info>]

Jon,

Why would we need to incorporate in UBL any technology that requires
licensing?

This is what I do not follow.  Seems like there's moves afoot to encourage
inclusion into specifications content that requires licensing.

IMHO - that's the opposite of what approaches such as UBL are all about - eg
there are no impediments to use.

I appreciate your efforts to try and clarify this all however - the OASIS
heirarchy
is being strangely silent on all this - understandably complex and confusing
situation.

I'm just wanting clarity and simplicity first and foremost.

Thanks, DW

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <jon.bosak@sun.com>
To: <ubl-dev@lists.oasis-open.org>; <ipr-member-review@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2004 11:47 AM
Subject: Re: [ubl-dev] UBL and proposed IPR policy changes


> [david@drrw.info:]
>
> | I'm looking at the 3 IPR choices that OASIS is proposing, and I do
> | not see that any of them fit here for UBL.
>
> The category called (somewhat confusingly, in my opinion)
> "Restricted RF" is the one that UBL fits in.
>
> | In fact the only two TCs I could see these changes definately
> | working for is the BPEL and the UDDI TCs. My interpretation is
> | that the IPR choices are makingextended licensing requirements to
> | become the normal modus operadi - instead of them being rare and
> | exceptional practice.
>
> Take a closer look at Sections 10.2 and 10.2.2:
>
>    10.2 RF Mode TC Requirements
>
>       For an OASIS Specification developed by an RF Mode TC, each
>       Obligated Party in such TC hereby covenants that, upon
>       request and subject to Section 11, it will grant to any
>       OASIS Party or third party: a nonexclusive, worldwide,
>       non-sublicensable, perpetual patent license (or an
>       equivalent non-assertion covenant) under its Essential
>       Claims covered by its Contribution Obligations or
>       Participation Obligations without payment of royalties or
>       fees and (subject to the applicable Section 10.2.1 or
>       10.2.2) under other fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory
>       terms to make, have made, use, market, import, offer to sell
>       and sell, and to otherwise distribute Products that
>       implement such OASIS Specification. Such license need not
>       extend to features of a Product that are not required to
>       comply with the Normative Portions of such OASIS
>       Specification.  Granting of such license may be subject to
>       the agreement by the Licensee to grant a reciprocal license
>       to its Essential Claims (if any) to [that Obligated
>       Party][all implementers of such OASIS Specification], and/or
>       a term providing that the license may be suspended with
>       respect to the Licensee when that Licensee sues [the
>       Obligated Party][any implementer] for infringement of claims
>       essential to implement such OASIS Specification.
>
>    10.2.2 Restricted RF-Licensing Terms
>
>       With TCs operating under the Restricted RF IPR Mode,
>       Obligated Parties may not impose any further conditions or
>       restrictions beyond those specifically mentioned in Section
>       10.2 on the use of any technology or intellectual property
>       rights, or other restrictions on behavior of the Licensee,
>       but may include reasonable, customary terms relating to
>       operation or maintenance of the license relationship such as
>       the following: choice of law and dispute resolution.
>
> All a patent holder is granted in the category described in 10.2.2
> is the right to specify the court of jurisdiction.  I think that's
> about as good as it gets.
>
> Jon
>
>