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

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

Bryan,

Unfortunately you do not cure the disease by taking more of what makes 
you sick in the first place!

Let's just look at a potential scenario for a moment.  Say we have UBL 
9200 series of business
transactions - for the foobar business process.  And a community adopts 
this and is using it
successfully worldwide.  Now along comes Company X and says we have just 
been awarded
a patent on process Y.

So - they look at our charter - and say - "and you have rules for 
licensing, so pay-up or else".

And we look at their claims and realize that their patent really has 
nothing to do with our process,
and worse - we developed the 9200 series based on public process work 
that should have
negated their patent anyway. 

I think we're worse off with some open door IPR statement than none at 
all.  If we have zero
licesening - then we really are saying - yes - we take due care that 
what develop is royality
and license free.  And what's more - by basing our technologies on 
longstanding open public
specifications - we really do build in an ability to show prior publicly 
available knowledge.
With a zero licensing policy - then we are not opening any doors or 
leaving any room for
legal actions.

Look at what the Apache Foundation did -  
http://xml.coverpages.org/ni2004-09-03-a.html

Back to Company X - what they will then do is go after a few poster 
child companies in the
space.  They'll pick small vulnerable companies - and a few larger ones 
- and issue legal
actions.  Now these cases will be here in the US - because elsewhere 
governments will step
in and protect their local interests.  We know that there are companies 
out there that buy-up
patents - and then aggressive extort money from companies in this way.  
They prey on
foriegn companies especially - who fear losing access to US markets.  
Frankly by having
any kind of IPR licensing door - looks to me this leaves companies more 
vulnerable to this
not less! 

The push back that we can have is to publicize such leach companies and 
get bad press
out there for them - that will hurt them in court cases for sure, and 
cause banks and
investors to turn away from these companies.  That is why we have OASIS 
in the first place.

This is the world we have today - and given the current US 
adminstration(s) and focus - I do
not see this changing in the near timeframe - its going to take 5+ years 
to fix this at the level
of international trade agreements.

Consider for a moment if international governments thru the WTO were to 
agree that certain
standards organizations - such as the W3C, ISO and OASIS have an 
exemption status for their
specifications.  That would be very smart - whereby internationally 
developed concensus
standards could not be compromised by IPR claims.

Again - any chance of getting such an agreement at the level of the WTO 
- would be compromised
if you were already allowing licensing of IPR!

I'm really seeing here - that particularly the US Government has created 
this situation - and we
need to put the onus there on getting this fixed.  Not dig a deeper hole 
for ourselves in the
meantime.

Thanks, DW.
===============================
.
Bryan Rasmussen wrote:

>  
>
>>Why would we need to incorporate in UBL any technology that requires
>>licensing?
>>    
>>
>I can think of one reason which would be the current structure of patent
>laws makes it extremely easy to use vague terminology to patent a process.
>As so many patents are taken out with vague parameters UBL and other
>standards will of necessity find themselves stepping on someone elses
>claimed territory, with the best of intentions. Standards organizations do
>not have the deep pockets to combat every specious patent out there.
> Now I think we all know the patent system is broken, and sooner or later
>it's going to need to be fixed, it might be the unthought hope that this
>functions as a temporary fix, allowing UBL and other standards to continue
>development, until such a time as the patent system gets fixed - hopefully
>in a way beneficial to UBL and other standards. 
>
>I don't think that is a plan per se, rather an unacknowledged desire. 
>  
>