[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [wss] RSA license and the upcoming SAML Interop
Tony,
To be clear, I was speaking on behalf of RSA. I am not sure why that should ever have been in doubt as I was responsible for posting the IP notice. I am not going to restate in ad hoc terms what the applicability of the IP may be – that is the purpose of very expensive and carefully worded patent applications.
As Bill has quite succinctly pointed out the use of the word “believe” in the context of IP assertions is normal practice.
RSA (that would be the “we” in this case) has extended an ROYALTY FREE reciprocal license in these areas, not only for the interop event but also for general implementations of WSS. Unlike owners of other IP in this area we have made it clear that we will not be seeking to make revenue from licensing this technology.
I may have missed something in your description of the problem, but I frankly do not understand why this has become such a monumental issue.
--Andrew From: Anthony Nadalin
[mailto:drsecure@us.ibm.com]
I had reviewed the link you posted before I posted my
append, and I have no context for the "we believe", is this Andrew,
or is this RSA or some other entity ? Thus the difference in the link and what
is posted from Andrew.
There
was a action item that was closed today AI #280. The wording below is not
definitive ("we believe") which is somewhat worry some, can we please
make a clear IPR statement as IPR statement (I take this as an IPR
statement) is worded in such a way as to suggest that doing anything
"useful" with the SAML profile and encrypted channels may require
licensing RSA patents.
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]