"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/
|