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 Apache
Date Fri, 15 Jul 2005 21:11:36 GMT
Jeff,

very nice :) Thoroughly enjoyed it :) :)

Wish MSFT tells us the same story as well.

-- dims

On 7/15/05, Jeffrey Thompson <jthom@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>  
> 
>  "Lawrence Rosen" <lrosen@rosenlaw.com> wrote on 07/15/2005 01:25:20 PM:
>  
>  > I'm now confused. Have we somehow concluded that even though IBM sent us
> a
>  > license agreement, there are actually no IBM patents for which we need
>  > licenses? Why did IBM do that? Or are those patents covered by the broad
>  > waiver IBM issued a few months ago? Or by the Contributor Agreement that
> IBM
>  > signed (even though IBM is offering a patent license, not software)? When
>  > did this suddenly turn into a non-issue? /Larry
>  > 
>  
> With a sense of irony that those of us that have been around here for a
> while can understand, the process went something like this (all text
> completely fictional, but it illustrates the point): 
>  
> <IBMer #1>:  WS-Security is a great Spec.  We need to submit it to a
> standards body. 
> <IBMer #2>:  Which one? 
> <IBMer #1>:  OASIS is pretty fast and efficient. 
> <IBMer #2>:  Yeah, but we want it to be RF, and OASIS only has a RAND
> policy. 
> <IBMer #1>:  Right.  Hey, we can make an RF commitment anyway.  Others have
> done it.  And, they're working on an RF policy.  That'll be done soon. 
> <IBMer #2>:  Great idea.  When we submit the Spec to OASIS, we'll submit a
> commitment to license all necessary claims on RF terms.  That'll work. 
> . . . 
> <OASIS>:            Thanks for the Spec.  Here is your working group. 
> <OASIS Member #1>:  We've noticed that you've made an RF commitment for your
> patents. 
> <IBMer #1>:         Right.  We want everybody to know that we're not going
> to try to hold up this Spec and that everyone can implement it. 
> <OASIS Member #1>:  But where are the terms? 
> <IBMer #1>:         What terms? 
> <OASIS Member #1>:  The terms for the patent license. 
> <IBMer #1>:         But we don't have any patents. 
> <OASIS Member #1>:  Not now.  But you might find one.  And if you do, we
> want to know that we'll like the terms. 
> <IBMer #1>:         That's silly.  Why not just wait until someone actually
> announces that they have a patent.  You'd save a lot of time. 
> <OASIS Member #1>:  Because we want to make sure we have all of our ducks
> lined up now. 
> <IBMer #1>:         But, potentially, every company in the world could have
> a patent that reads on WS-Security. 
> <OASIS Member #1>:  So. 
> <IBMer #1>:         Does that mean that you want to negotiate patent terms
> with everybody in case they just might have a patent. 
> <OASIS Member #1>:  Maybe.  We still want patent terms from you because you
> helped write the Spec. 
> <IBMer #1>:         OK, but it'll be a waste of time.  Let me go talk to my
> lawyer. 
> . . . 
> <IBMer #1>:         Here is your patent license. 
> <OASIS Member #1>:  Thanks.  We don't like the terms. . . . 
> <IBMer #1>:         But we don't have any patents. 
> <OASIS Member #1>:  . . . 
> . . . 
> <Apache>:    Great Spec that WS-Security.  Wish we could implement it. 
> <IBMer #3>:  Why can't you implement it. 
> <Apache>:    You have necessary patents that you won't license on terms we
> like. 
> <IBMer #3>:  But the terms are fine -- the same terms that apply to all
> other Internet standards. 
> <Apache>:    You sure? 
> <IBMer #3>:  Yeah. 
> <Apache>:    But still, we don't want to be forcing patents on our licensees
> unless we know the terms are OK. 
> <IBMer #3>:  I understand, but we don't have any patents. 
> <Apache>:    Oh.  Right.  So, if you didn't have any patents, why did you
> publish a patent license then. 
> <IBMer #3>:  [sigh] 
>  
> 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


Mime
View raw message