Title: Sony Licenses InterTrust Patents
Ouch,
Brad.
I am
disturbed by the reaction here. I am not trying to provoke any negative backlash
about the subject of patents -- we all know this is a contentious issue. I am
just trying to understand what is going on with all these patents. What I want
-- and what I believe all of us want - is some predictability so that if we
develop a standard we can implement it with confidence that we aren't going to
get caught up in some patent wars that prevent us from deploying DRM
technology.
Someone DID in fact make some strong claims about the
predominance of Content Guard's patents -- I think it was Mike Miron. I
had just (as you report correctly here) pointed out that I thought there were
lots of other patents but said that maybe they could all invalidate each other, and Mike said something like "I beg to
differ that CG's patents could ever be invalidated" , My
point is simply that it will be hard to make progress toward a broadly based
standard if we don't somehow deal with these rival patents. I've been told
that the Intertrust patent is over a 1000 pages long and includes the kitchen
sink and that it was so comprehensive that "it may have been easier for Sony to
license it than to read it." It may not be the job of this TC to deal with
the patents but it surely has to be done or we might all be wasting our time
here.
The
reason I asked the questions about Sony is because I would like to know the
answers. I'm not an MPEG 21 person so I don' t know if Sony is involved there. I
don't know if Sony has licensed the Content Guard patents. Surely people
on this list must know the answers to both questions. Saying that I should
"talk to Sony" isn't very helpful and doesn't get us closer to a standard that
we are all willing and able to implement.
So I'll ask the questions again--
1) What role, if any, is Sony playing in the MPEG21 activity (or
any other standards body with DRM concerns)?
2) Has Sony also licensed the Content Guard patents?
3) Has anyone suggested to Sony that they get involved in the
OASIS TC?
I
especially think that (3) is important. We don't want to hear later that they
didn't know this TC existed.
bob
-----Original Message-----
From:
Gandee, Brad [mailto:]
Sent: Friday, May
24, 2002 9:24 AM
To: 'Glushko, Bob';
Subject: RE: [rights] Sony Licenses
InterTrust Patents
Bob,
"Sony
certainly disagrees with some of the statements I heard on Tuesday about no
patents other than Content Guard's being relevant to our work."
ContentGuard made no such representation in the meeting Tuesday.
We stated that we believe we have IPR that is relevant to the work of the TC
and we did so in compliance with the OASIS policies. We have said that
our IP is not specific to XrML. The patents were filed before XrML even
existed. We also said that we expect others will come forward at
some point and assert their IPR. In fact you, Bob, said at one
point that there appears to be IPR relevant to this work asserted by both
ContentGuard and IBM. If someone does come forward and it makes sense to form
a patent pool to help facilitate the implementation of the language
ContentGuard would seriously consider being part of it and stated this
openness before.
Are
there other companies that hold IPR's on technology that will be relevant to
the implementation of DRM systems in general, absolutely. Is InterTrust
one of those absolutely. Are there others
absolutely.
Is
it the task of this TC to resolve the IPR issues that may or may not be
relevant to anyone's implementation of a DRM system?
No
As
for the issues with respect to Sony, someone should talk to
Sony.
Brad
