www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeffrey Thompson <jt...@us.ibm.com>
Subject Re: Derby/Cloudscape Patent
Date Thu, 23 Jun 2005 14:58:56 GMT
"Geir Magnusson Jr." <geirm@apache.org> wrote on 06/23/2005 06:13:06 AM:

> 
> 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.

One correction, the patent grant by IBM wasn't implicit, it was EXPLICIT. 
The Contribution Agreement for Derby says:

"Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, You hereby grant 
to the Foundation and to recipients of software distributed by the 
Foundation a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, 
irrevocable (except as stated in this section) patent license to make, 
have made, use, offer to sell, sell, import, and otherwise transfer the 
Work, where such license applies only to those patent claims licensable by 
You that are necessarily infringed by Your Contribution(s) alone or by 
combination of Your Contribution(s) with the Work to which such 
Contribution(s) were submitted. . . . "

To the extent that that patent is infringed by the code and licensable by 
IBM, Apache and all who receive that code are licensed.

<snip> 
> 
> >
> > <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.
> 
At the time that WS-Security was submitted to OASIS, OASIS had not yet 
adopted a formal RF process.  The good news was that the commitments made 
by the authors of WS-Security were much more than was required by OASIS. 
The bad news was that the process was ad hoc out of necessity.  Hopefully 
some of the confusion can be avoided in the future. 

That said, and I'm sure that you've been asked this before, but I don't 
understand something and I'm hoping that you can explain it to me, are you 
looking for patent #s, and if so, why? 

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/ 


Mime
View raw message