legalxml-sc — archive

RE: [legalxml-sc] Proposed amendment to ROP

From: John Greacen
To: [email protected]
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 22:45:00 -0000

MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->

legalxml-sc message

Subject: RE: [legalxml-sc] Proposed amendment to ROP

From: "John M. Greacen" <[email protected]>
To: "'John Messing'" <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 16:44:14 -0600

Thanks for the heads up.

Do ECF 1.0, ECF 1.1 and Court Document 1.1 constitute prior art that would
invalidate such a patent since they contain "legally expressed rights and
duties?"  If the proposed patent is applied to our future standards, don't
our past standards serve to invalidate the claim?  I am no more an IP lawyer
than the man in the moon, so I seek your reading (and Jamie Clark's as
well).

I also think that the OASIS IPR policy was designed for exactly this
situation and that it should protect the eContracts TC at least, unless the
member has withdrawn from the TC.

Also, I do not see what affect this has on our adopting the proposed ROP
language.  If we are dead, we are dead -- under the new or the old language.
And, under OASIS rules, we have to adopt one of the three OASIS alternatives
now or within another twenty months.  And we have a potential new TC about
to start up -- dependency.  It needs guidance.

We can discuss all this on Wednesday.

>