Mailing-List: contact legal-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Received-SPF: neutral (asf.osuosl.org: local policy)
In-Reply-To: <19e0530f05062219566dd14bc3@mail.gmail.com>
References: <19e0530f05062219216527a39e@mail.gmail.com>
 <6D76215D-BEE4-4C15-8ABD-9FB821B09FAE@apache.org>
 <19e0530f05062219566dd14bc3@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v730)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Message-Id: <FC381F1B-D232-480B-BAB1-220A9A8B3C48@apache.org>
Cc: legal-discuss@apache.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: "Geir Magnusson Jr." <geirm@apache.org>
Subject: Re: Derby/Cloudscape Patent
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 06:13:06 -0400
To: dims@apache.org


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