www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Davanum Srinivas <dava...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: IBM and WS-Security
Date Fri, 24 Jun 2005 20:58:04 GMT
Elementary![1]. Thanks.

-- dims

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherlock_Holmes

On 6/24/05, Jeffrey Thompson <jthom@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> Davanum Srinivas <davanum@gmail.com> wrote on 06/24/2005 03:13:52 PM:
>  > Jeff,
>  > 
>  > Thanks. Now i understand the concept of offering license w/o
>  > identifying patent claims...BUT i see that the IBM license has a 1
>  > year limit (see section 6.1) and MSFT has no limits as long as the
>  > patent is applicable to this thing that we are implementing. Is'nt it
>  > better to remove the 1 year limit? (or am i reading this wrong)
>  > 
> That one year limit isn't a problem, it's IBM's patent lawyers being . . .
> ah . . . patent lawyers.  (No insult to patent lawyers intended.  Honestly.)
> I think that the one year limit derives from the time limit in the U.S. for
> filing patent applications.  In the U.S., you can file a patent application
> for an invention up to one year after the patented invention was first
> published, incorporated into an on-sale product, etc.  That's the reason why
> there's always a search for prior art when someone tries to assert a patent
> claim.  If you can find a publication that describes the supposed invention
> or on-sale item which implements the invention that existed more than one
> year prior to the filing date, the filing was invalid, and therefore so is
> the patent.  It doesn't matter whether the patent holder actually invented
> the invention, whether someone learned it and then published it, or what. 
> If its past 1 year, the patent is dead.  (I'm sure that there are
> exceptions, but that's the general rule.) 
> In the case of this license, it only applies to patents that were filed no
> later than a year and a day after WS-Security was published.  The reasoning
> is that any patents that were filed after that date don't need to be
> licensed because they are invalid (as WS-Security's publication would have
> predated it by more than a year).  Since there have been court cases which
> have held that it is patent abuse to try to license a group of patents, some
> of which are obviously invalid, it makes sense to exclude those.  I'm not
> saying that all patent licenses need to include that language, but the
> language makes sense. 
> Before anyone asks the obvious question, no, IBM is not in the habit of
> filing for obviously invalid patents.  But since IBM does a large number of
> patent filings each year, there is the possibility that someone misses
> something and we file one late.  In that case, I would hope the examiner
> would catch it, but we all know how overworked they are.   
> In the end, the one year limitation isn't a problem.  All valid patents that
> are necessary for WS-Security would have been filed long before that one
> year period had expired. 
> > - dims
>  > 
>  <snip>
>  > 
>  > -- 
>  > Davanum Srinivas -http://blogs.cocoondev.org/dims/
> Jeff
>  Staff Counsel, IBM Corporation  (914)766-1757  (tie)8-826  (fax) -8160
>  (notes) jthom@ibmus  (internet) jthom@us.ibm.com (home) jeff@beff.net
>  (web) http://www.beff.net/ 

Davanum Srinivas -http://blogs.cocoondev.org/dims/

DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only, are not privileged and do not constitute legal advice.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org

View raw message