Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-legal-discuss-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-legal-discuss-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6BD0D4195 for ; Tue, 31 May 2011 18:11:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 42097 invoked by uid 500); 31 May 2011 18:11:36 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-legal-discuss-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 41966 invoked by uid 500); 31 May 2011 18:11:35 -0000 Mailing-List: contact legal-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: Reply-To: legal-discuss@apache.org List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list legal-discuss@apache.org Received: (qmail 41959 invoked by uid 99); 31 May 2011 18:11:35 -0000 Received: from minotaur.apache.org (HELO minotaur.apache.org) (140.211.11.9) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 31 May 2011 18:11:35 +0000 Received: from localhost (HELO [90.169.82.32]) (127.0.0.1) (smtp-auth username cutting, mechanism plain) by minotaur.apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 31 May 2011 18:11:35 +0000 Message-ID: <4DE52F53.6030106@apache.org> Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 20:11:31 +0200 From: Doug Cutting User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110424 Thunderbird/3.1.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: legal-discuss@apache.org Subject: Re: A latent disclosure walked into a bar ... References: In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 05/31/2011 02:37 PM, Benson Margulies wrote: > So, respecting the icla, someone submits a patch to a project and > notifies that some university claims a patent on the algorithm > therein. The code is the 'original work' of the submitter. As a PMC > member, what do I do? The risk of any piece of software being accused by a litigious patent owner as implementing some patent is never non-zero. Whether a patent is valid and whether a given piece of software implements the patent can only be conclusively resolved by a court. Until then we need to estimate the risk to a project. It depends in part on the likelihood that the owner of the patent will seek license fees from Apache's users. Google has a patent on a technique called MapReduce. Apache Hadoop implements a technique called MapReduce inspired by a technical paper published by the authors of the patent. Google has, to date, not sought license fees for any patents it owns. So, while their patent may create some risk for Hadoop, that risk might be small. Other considerations when evaluating risk are whether the invention is central to the project or whether it might easily be removed without greatly impairing the project. Also consider whether other (perhaps slightly inferior) methods might be used instead if the project is ever accused of infringing the patent. Doug --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org