MHonArc v2.5.2 -->
legalxml-sc message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: Request for Closure: RE: [legalxml-sc] IP wording in LegalXMLCourt Filing proposal
From: "John M. Greacen" <>
To: "Bergeron, Donald L. (LNG)" <>
Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 19:21:24 -0600
I am sorry that I was out of communication while this was going on.
I wholeheartedly support the steering committee decision.
I disagree with Jim about reopening the discussions with the OASIS Board
about IP. It is very clear that the OASIS Board has strong and firmly
held views on this issue and that they will not agree to our creating a
separate IP agreement for members of our TCs to sign. As Dan points
out, we agreed during the negotiations to take the approach we took.
It has given us an IP policy that we all agreed we can live with.
The Board changes do not affect in any way the purpose for which we sought
the language -- to be able to have a clear basis for rejecting material
in which someone claims an IP interest in one of our specifications.
We were concerned about material that we know is protected.
The first change -- putting in the "belief" standard -- gives us greater
protection than the original language, in that our decision cannot be challenged
on the grounds that inclusion of particular material will not in fact infringe
third party rights.
I ask that we consider this issue closed.
"Bergeron, Donald L. (LNG)" wrote:
Given the feedback by the majority of the steering
committee and the
representations by Karl on behalf of OASIS, as Chair of the steering
committee I accept the new wording for the committee. Thank you all
for your
feedback and assistance.
Karl, Let us proceed!
Regards,
Don
