www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Derby/Cloudscape Patent
Date Thu, 23 Jun 2005 11:51:44 GMT

On Jun 23, 2005, at 7:07 AM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:

> Geir,
>
> I think Verisign probably has some too. Not just MSFT

And we don't worry about Verisign's as they are implicitly granted as  
part of their donation.  MSFT is different story, and that's the  
issue around TSIK, right?

>  At least IBM
> should make it clear which Patents are *implicitly* granted.

Well, I'm not sure why.  We don't require this of anyone else.  I'm  
not defending IBM - my employer - but simply wondering why they are  
an exceptional case...

Regarding the third-party patents in Derby, we do have an interesting  
hypothetical situation, which I will bring up on legal-internal.

> Third-party or not.

Third-party patents are *not* granted.

>
> On the WS-Security issue, can u help? at least with IBM license? If we
> can get an OK from IBM for WSS4J, then we can petition microsoft.
> Right now, it's like flogging a dead horse.

I'll help in any way I can internally.  However, I went from being an  
officer of an 18 person company to an employee of a 320,018 person  
company.  My influence has been diluted somewhat :)

Let me know what I can do. I've already started murmuring things  
about contributions of such patents to a patent commons as one way  
out of this.

geir

>
> -- dims
>
> On 6/23/05, Geir Magnusson Jr. <geirm@apache.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jun 22, 2005, at 10:56 PM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Why should we hold Verisign to one standard (for TSIK, Justin  
>>> told me
>>> that we should get an explicit grant) and one for IBM? Why not  
>>> get an
>>> explicit grant (or) at least an acknowledgement that this patent  
>>> is in
>>> "play". This is one thing i dug up. We don't know if there are  
>>> others.
>>>
>>
>> If I understand the facts right, and it's the case that the Derby
>> code infringes the patent, it's because IBM owns the patent that is
>> infringed by the code IBM contributed to the ASF. Therefore, as per
>> the terms of the CCLA/SG and the AL, they implicitly are granting
>> patent licenses to any recipient of that codebase.
>>
>> In the case of TSIK, Verisign is the code contributor, and MSFT is
>> the [claimed] patent holder.  Verisign therefore isn't able to grant
>> the patent license.  If it was MSFT that was contributing the code,
>> it would be fine - MSFT would be implicitly granting the patent  
>> license.
>>
>>
>>> Stefano specifically asked for this information (which patents are
>>> implicitly granted) on the board@ mailing list. I posted specific
>>> question about this patent once on board@ and once on pmc@incubator
>>> and got no responses from any one. Finally i asked Sam on IM and he
>>> asked me to send Jeff a note.
>>>
>>
>> Stefano's question was related to *third party* patents that IBM has
>> a license to for it's DB technology that is infringed by Derby, and
>> thus IBM is not implicitly granting patent licenses for.
>>
>> See the diff?
>>
>>
>>>
>>> <rant ignore="on">
>>> On a related note, i have spent a lot of time searching for the IBM
>>> patents for WS-Security and still haven't found it. It's ridiculous
>>> for Apache to have to sign a license agreement for OASIS WS-Security
>>> specification (see http://www.ibm.com/ibm/licensing/977Q/2112.shtml)
>>> when there is *NO* public information either or IBM site or MSFT  
>>> site
>>> or Verisign site about which patents they have that Apache will
>>> infringe by implementing WS-Security. Even the license PDF does not
>>> mention any specific patents. This is just driving me nuts. At least
>>> verisign is willing to donate code (TSIK) and would consider  
>>> granting
>>> licenses for their IP. Am getting the run around from IBM and MSFT
>>> folks on the OASIS WSS mailing list (some public/some private). For
>>> godsakes, they threw me out of the mailing list on a technicality.
>>> </rant>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I have no advice or comment other than noting that "this situation
>> sucks", which is just a summary of the <rant/> paragraph above.
>>
>> geir
>>
>>
>>> thanks for listening,
>>> dims
>>>
>>> On 6/22/05, Geir Magnusson Jr. <geirm@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Jun 22, 2005, at 10:21 PM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Jeff,
>>>>>
>>>>> Is U.S. Patent 6,304,882
>>>>> (http://www.google.com/search?q=Patent+6%2C304%2C882)  
>>>>> applicable to
>>>>> Derby as it was originally from cloudscape? See following URL's  
>>>>> for
>>>>> more information on the transfer details etc. If so, can we
>>>>> please get
>>>>> an explicit patent grant?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I read it as being owned by IBM.  If that's so, and IBM contributed
>>>> the code, why do we need an *explicit* grant?
>>>>
>>>> Just curious about the thinking here...
>>>>
>>>> geir
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/cjjhh
>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/99hxh
>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/7vomw
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> dims
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Geir Magnusson Jr                                  +1-203-665-6437
>>>> geirm@apache.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Geir Magnusson Jr                                  +1-203-665-6437
>> geirm@apache.org
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> -- 
> 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
>
>

-- 
Geir Magnusson Jr                                  +1-203-665-6437
geir@optonline.net



---------------------------------------------------------------------
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


Mime
View raw message