OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   RE: [xml-dev] Patented XML Compression Techniques (WAS RE: [xml-d ev] Bi

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

The GNU forces the cost of that back to the software purchaser 
and that is unacceptable to some buyers.  Some accept the risks;  
however one defends it, one must.  Some use their own IP to 
defend it.  That's smart.  The problem here is how IP intersects 
with standards development.  Each organization is setting 
their own policies, but there are beginning to be  
breakdowns among some of the organizations that 
were cooperating to get royalty free standards 
and specifications. As one is forced back into 
indemnifying the technology against claims 
and one way to do that is to own IP, what one 
bargains away is a scrutinized item.

It is a cost of doing business.  As I read these 
RFPs, I see the indemnification clauses in all of 
them.  This isn't new stuff.  There is naivete 
or simple arrogance in denying it is important. 
Claims that say, "Well, our model produces better 
technology cheaper if you ignore risks" is not the 
same deal as a budget airline that can cut costs 
by not providing services; they still have to step 
up to the risk management of getting the customer 
to the destination alive.

Let me ask you; if the submarine patents are that 
scary, what possible good is the W3C royalty-free 
requirement or any other document for that matter 
which asserts property claims with regards to 
technology?  Not much.  So the common business 
practice is precisely to document known claims and 
then to contractually place the ownership of the 
risk.  The GNU contracts make the buyer liable.  
Common business indemnity clauses make the seller liable.  

One of IBM's responses to SCO is to cite their own patents, 
a couple of which look fairly ridiculous too, but, 
this is the IP value I discussed earlier.  The 
big guys have patent portfolios.  The little 
guys may have some; the ones who are saying 
they need none are roadkill.


From: John Cowan [mailto:jcowan@reutershealth.com]

Bullard, Claude L (Len) scripsit:

> That is what some are trying to work out.  One common approach is to
> ensure that each document in the process covers the contingencies 
> for the next step.  For example, the workshop is a little dangerous 
> if any of the presenters provide information which taints further 
> work.  In an RFP, one details all obligations for submission including 
> for example, recognition that the submitting the material obligates 
> the submittor to the IP policies of the organization posting the 
> RFP.  

The trouble is that (especially with patents) there may be submarines
which neither RFP creator nor proposer is aware of.  Your only defense
against this is general anti-patent insurance.


News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS