Bob hi
> I think the keyword here is "irrevocably", which presumably has a
> meaning outside of the longevity of Sun's participation in OASIS..
Yes, but that "irrevocably" is scoped only to certain things - hence the
query.
> > If this is the case, is this acceptable to OASIS? I doubt it would
> > be acceptable to JTC 1 (newly sensitized to IPR issues by events
> > elsewhere), or to the "FOSS community", who enjoy a distinctly
> > problematic relationship with Sun.
>
> I can't speak for the FOSS community other than perhaps to observe
> that I think the relationship has actually been pretty good. Of
> course in reality the community is really many communities, hence the
> qualifier. Still I think the insinuation you are hinting at is really
> off target and inappropriate.
Corporations are corporations, and exist to make money without necessary
regard for anything or anybody else; even if good guys are in charge
today they may not be in charge tomorrow - that is why (in my view) it
is necessary to treat all corporations with equal scepticism. The
problems I was alluding to were the recent spats around OpenSolaris,
which are real enough and very pertinent to detail of the current
discussion.
> > What is needed here is a clearly-stated, perpetual waiver of patent
> > rights from all parties who potentially hold them, that applies to
> all
> > ODF drafts, specifications and standards published by OASIS
> > embodying those technologies; not a hard-to-parse, qualified and
> > conditional waiver. DIS 29500 has taught us that such clarity is
necessary.
> >
>
> Generally I do agree with you (Not that we ever got the clarity we
> sought regarding DIS 29500). But I too am in general sceptical of all
> of these promises, covenants and what have you. I doubt even if you
> would get right the clear and unambiguous waiver you have in mind. I
> think they are fiendishly difficult to get right. And they seem
> always qualified in one way or another. But yes, in general, I will
> always welcome the greatest clarity and lack of ambiguity on this.
>
> In South Africa at least, such inventions are not patentable subject
> matter.
Nor in the UK. Probably. The interactions between European and UK law
here are something I don't grok, and don't intend to!
> And Sun do not have any such patents filed (unless they have slipped
> some in while I was not looking). It is for this reason more than any
> other, that I do not fear any deficiencies that might exist in their
> covenant. Granted that this does not help our US colleagues.
>
> > Enlightenment / reassurance please!
>
> Microsoft, in contrast to most other key multinationals in this space,
> and which as you know enjoys a distinctly unproblematic relationship
> with the FOSS Community
Do you _really_ mean "unproblematic" ;-) ?
> (not to mention JTC 1) , owns something like a 40% share of the entire
> G06F category of patents in SA. Most of which may not be worth the
> paper they are printed on, having been obtained without examination at
> around $50 a piece, but they do give us good reason to be more than a
> little concerned. We worry more about all the loaded guns than the
> promises not not to shoot them.
Well (and we risking drifting off-topic a little here) in my view
software patenting is a nonsense. Of the current banking crisis people
are saying now (of toxic debts) "why didn't we see these things were
worthless - it is obvious?". I think we can say now that many IPR
portfolios are worthless, and that is obvious. No corporation is ever
going to profit from a portfolio of junk patents and those that think
they will are living in a fantasy land.
However, in the current climate it is incumbent on us as standardisers
to make standards zones which are free from patenting nonsense; and
possibly to lobby for legislation to back this up with real teeth.
- Alex.
