Gabe,
Of course the other option is to have TC work that precludes patented
material.
I still do not see any IPR policy that specifically supports that
option - other than the legacy policy.
To my knowledge the BOD - despite Patricks assertions that OASIS
would - still has made no effort to accommodate the OSI concerns in
this regard nor arranged any conference calls or interactions with
OSI to move toward having OASIS TC work able to comply to OSI
licensing needs.
For the life of me I cannot see anything in SAML that anyone could
legitimately claim to have a patented invention around. But then
again people have patents on the menu key sequence for bank ATMs -
clearly a ground breaking invention - key pad sequences. Would be
interesting to know exactly what about SAML is using such a unique
mechanism that it is a patented system?
Assuming the patent may fall under the not-really-an-invention-at-all
category - hopefully the SAML TC can re-factor their work so that it
does not rely on any dubious or questionable patents in the first
place...
DW
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re:
[chairs] Patent license friction...
From: Frederick Hirsch
<>
Date: Thu, April 27, 2006 5:51
pm
To: "ext Wachob, Gabe" <>
Cc: Frederick
Hirsch <>, "Chairs
OASIS"
<>
Gabe
I
believe the SSTC is operating under the legacy IPR policy. TCs
under the current (new) policies incur much clearer and well-
understood obligations, which should go a long way toward reducing
friction and confusion.
In general I believe the
reason law tends to be difficult is that it
is difficult to
clearly state in language precise rules where the
concerns of
various parties are met. The new OASIS policy attempts to
do
this as clearly as possible, specifying the "features" of the
license that may be used in the different IPR modes,
providing more
clarity on the licenses that may be
obtained.
However, within the scope of the OASIS policy it is
the right of a
patent holder to write their license. Likewise
it is not unreasonable
to have more than one means of
obtaining a license from a patent
holder, although it may be
in everyone's interest to make it easier.
In the specific
example, I would take the "would" to indicate that a
license
will be granted if and when needed, which seems reasonable.
I'd recommend consult your attorney for advice if you haven't
already
done so.
However, I believe the current IPR
policy is a big step forward
toward clarity. However, as you
note, it is realistic to expect to
contact patent holders for
licenses as needed.
Thanks
regards,
Frederick
Frederick Hirsch
Nokia
[1]
http://www.oasis-open.org/who/intellectualproperty.php
On Apr
27, 2006, at 4:59 PM, ext Wachob, Gabe wrote:
> This is a
real basic questions that has been nagging at me for
>
quite a while.
>
> Lets say I want to use a OASIS
specification (lets take SAML 2.0 -
> I'm not picking on
them - but it makes a good illustration). I note
> that
there are various IPR disclosures at http://www.oasis-open.org/
> committees/security/ipr.php - and some of these disclosures
state
> that the patent owners *will* license their
Patents for the purpose
> of SAML. Some express covenants
not to assert claims. Some point to
> blanket licenses on
web sites.
>
> If I were a lawyer I would find this
situation a) confusing, b)
> scattered and c) potentially
dangerous. For example, on that page,
> Fidelty states
that it "would grant to any other person or legal
> entity
a royalty-free, nonexclusive, nontransferable, license under
> Fidelity's NECESSARY CLAIMS to implement the SAML v2.0
OASIS
> Standard, and sell, promote or otherwise
distribute the resulting
> implementation.
"
>
> Note the word "would". I don't see that Fidelty
actually *has*
> granted a license. Thus, while they would
now have a hard time
> enforcing the patent (given theories
of estoppel, etc), I don't
> believe that Fidelty actually
*has* granted a license. It appears
> that I have to go to
Fidelty and get a license if I wish to use
> SAML. (Not
picking on Fidelity - they are just first on the list of
>
disclosers).
>
> Are people aware of this? Do users of SAML
specifications actually
> know that they apparently aren't
actually licensed to use the
> patents that Fidelity
believes it has? Doesn't this (or rather, if
> lawyers
were paying attention, *shouldn't* this) be a concern? I
>
realize this TC operated under the legacy IPR policy - I wonder how
> that affects things.
>
> If a
implementer/user of SAML were to actually be careful with
> their use of the SAML specs, they'd actually have to
contact
> Fidelity to execute the license. I think this
should be
> highlighted! If a contributor wants to
contribute, and they don't
> offer a covenant or other
blanket license (or a URL to a blanket
> license, etc),
this potentially increases the friction for adoption.
>
>
In an ideal world, there'd be one patent license that every patent-
> holder contributor would agree to -- I'm not naive to believe
that
> would happen (or that OASIS could force that to
happen), but I do
> believe in notice. Only as a
persistent person who actually read
> the entire IPR
disclosure page did I notice that to use SAML 2 I
> have
to somehow negotiate a license with Fidelity.. Most people
> aren't going to do this and will be blissfully
ignorant.
>
> I think as a practical matter, most patent
holders who are
> contributing to OASIS specs don't really
want to deal with
> individual licensing -- but OASIS IPR
policy doesn't really push or
> guide patent holders to
put up blanket unilateral licenses -- its
> up to each IPR
holder to license (or covenant) in what ever way
> they
want.
>
> THE PROPOSAL:
> I think, in short, that
OASIS should guide patent holders towards
> the lowest
friction licenses possible by suggesting (not forcing)
>
patent holders to use a standardized license (or at least suggest
> that patent holders post a "click-through" or unilateral
license).
>
> -Gabe
>
> P.S. If I'm
wrong about any of the facts, please let me know ... I
>
could have easily missed something.
>
__________________________________________________
>
> Chief Systems Architect
> Technical
Innovation and Standards Management
> Visa International
>
Phone: +1.650.432.3696 Fax: +1.650.554.6817
>
>
