www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Dittert, Eric" <eric.ditt...@intel.com>
Subject RE: CCLA: "by combination" language
Date Fri, 02 Jun 2006 22:07:16 GMT
> In the patent interpretation context, the term "combination" has a well
settled meaning and does not mean what you

> think that it might mean.  A patent reads on the combination of A and B
iff both A and B are necessary to implement

> the patented invention. 

 

Ok, thanks.  That was ignorance on my part.

> But, that's not the issue that Doug brought up.  The question is not
whether patents that read solely on the

> remaining part of the Work are licensed.  The question is whether patents
that read on combinations of your

> Contribution and future versions of the Work are licensed.  Completely
different question.

 

Different, but related.  With the interpretation of “combination” that you
have given, the potential license grants arising from future versions of the
Work are at least confined to patents that are actually related to the
Contribution.  With my naïve interpretation, no such confinement would
exist.  (At the risk of putting words in others’ mouths, I think that is
what led some to characterize the problem as “unbounded”.)

 

-- Eric

 

 


Mime
View raw message