Gabe,
I agree that OASIS can do more here.
Right now we're caught in no-mans-land as TC chairs - where we are
being asked to sign-on to IPR policies that appear to not be in-line
with the needs of our work and members vision, while at the same time
being hand-cuffed in not being able to mitigate that by clarifications
at the TC level to participants.
If we had tools like sample IPR contribution agreement templates
(such as defensive RF, RF) that we can present to participants up front
- then as you rightly note - the likelihood is that their respective
legal departments will apply something close to that. Instead
when you throw it open - you end up with legal imposing something that
is at odds with the spirit and mission because their frame of reference
is narrowed just to that company view.
So I'm not sure that the new IPR is less "messy" than the old!?
It's more perscribing - but that appears to be in a negative way that
does not solve the issues we are seeing here. If a TC wants
to simplify this all by chartering its work as specifically
RF-based as a term of participatation and acceptance of
contributions - right now we cannot.
Thanks, DW
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE:
[chairs] Is "Defensive RF" the answer to the OASIS
IPR
impasse?
From: "Wachob, Gabe"
<>
Date: Mon, May 08, 2006 2:22 pm
To:
"David RR Webber (XML)" <>, "Chairs
OASIS"
<>
Cc:
<>,
<>
David-
Actually,
with regards to SAML, I believe there are two caveats
to your
comments:
a) it's the old IPR rules, so things are a bit messier
than the new IPR
rules and
b) Fidelity has committed to a
RANDZ license - but requires licensees to
*individually* negotiate
such licenses with them.
The real issue, as I see it, is
item b) - that many people using
SAML probably do not realize that
they must execute such a license with
Fidelity because Fidelity has
not presented a unilateral (e.g.
click-through) license or a
covenant not to sue (as have several other
parties). I do believe
that Fidelity is not trying to make things
difficult - I'm guessing
they would happily do whatever was best for
SAML but are not aware
that this is really an issue or haven't been able
to come up with
something like the convenant not to sue or a unilateral
license for
internal policy reasons.
My point is that OASIS has influence
here and can help to shape
licensing practice w/r/t OASIS specs that
have potential patent
encumberances. For many implementers, these
licensing details are "below
the radar". For organizations that are
more sensitive to IPR issues (and
may have past experience being on
the wrong end of patent litigation,
because of unclear or sloppy IPR
license management or for other
reasons), these details are extremely
important.
I realize that many people may find these issues to
be
"nitpicking" - and actually I think that's a compliment to the
new OASIS
IPR rules that we actually are getting down to the
"mechanics" of the
licensing process rather than huge substantive
issues. But they are
important and I think OASIS can do the world
some benefit by taking
leadership here and nudging patent holders to
a more uniform and
complete licensing process...
-Gabe
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
David RR Webber (XML) [mailto:]
> Sent: Monday,
May 08, 2006 7:58 AM
> To: Chairs OASIS
> Cc:
;
>
> Subject: [chairs] Is
"Defensive RF" the answer to the OASIS
> IPR impasse?
>
> Following on from the past weeks discussion and notes around
the
> experience of the use of SAML. It seems clear that
large user
> corporations and governments have an aversion to any
standard that has
> licensing requirement from individual
companies that they must action.
>
> This clearly
limits any OASIS standard adoption where there
> are
specific
> licensing needed.
>
> Whereas the
current OASIS IPR choices really do not make this
> clear -
in
> fact the opposite - the door appears to be open where future
> impediments
> may be added at an unknown time by
participating contributors.
>
> We heard again the
argument that - "why work on a standard if then it
> has to be
scrapped because of some IPR that later arises?"
>
>
Conversely one could say that in the case of things like SAML
>
where any
> non-RF licensing will effectively scrap the use
anyway - then we have
> to be pragmatic and say we need an IPR
policy where adopters know that
> - contributors to the OASIS
work do so solely on the basis of RF only
> and that is enshrined
in the charter and modus operandi of the TC that
> their
participation is on that basis alone.
>
> Hence -
the TC would only accept work on the basis of RF, and beyond
>
that if IPR issues arise those will either require an RF agreement,
or
> the TC work will be changed to avoid that IPR and not
include it.
>
> Having that level of clear statement
in the IPR-mode options
> is what we
> appear to be missing
today - as evidenced by the experience with SAML.
>
>
Cordially, DW
>
>
