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 ABB1B1796E for ; Sat, 14 Feb 2015 18:46:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 85578 invoked by uid 500); 14 Feb 2015 18:46:26 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-legal-discuss-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 85392 invoked by uid 500); 14 Feb 2015 18:46:25 -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 85380 invoked by uid 99); 14 Feb 2015 18:46:25 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 14 Feb 2015 18:46:25 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.2 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of lrosen@rosenlaw.com designates 67.222.38.55 as permitted sender) Received: from [67.222.38.55] (HELO gproxy5-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com) (67.222.38.55) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with SMTP; Sat, 14 Feb 2015 18:45:58 +0000 Received: (qmail 17219 invoked by uid 0); 14 Feb 2015 18:39:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cmgw3) (10.0.90.84) by gproxy5.mail.unifiedlayer.com with SMTP; 14 Feb 2015 18:39:14 -0000 Received: from box597.bluehost.com ([66.147.242.197]) by cmgw3 with id sJf91p00V4GF2VN01JfChh; Sat, 14 Feb 2015 11:39:14 -0700 X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=SqADtp+0 c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=NRJ8aB/FPT4S3utBguGD+g==:117 a=NRJ8aB/FPT4S3utBguGD+g==:17 a=cNaOj0WVAAAA:8 a=f5113yIGAAAA:8 a=4F77bVRYAAAA:8 a=FxJxCPAPh0wA:10 a=AqkBdCNi7UMA:10 a=0HtSIViG9nkA:10 a=DAwyPP_o2Byb1YXLmDAA:9 a=Zr7miEi8wWIA:10 a=cKsnjEOsciEA:10 a=2oeSqxxVzlsA:10 a=cspC3rXZvCm80iroETAA:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=yMhMjlubAAAA:8 a=SSmOFEACAAAA:8 a=UNyt_yJ5is5-HkGUJ5kA:9 a=gKO2Hq4RSVkA:10 a=UiCQ7L4-1S4A:10 a=hTZeC7Yk6K0A:10 a=frz4AuCg-hUA:10 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rosenlaw.com; s=default; h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:Date:Subject:Cc:To:From:Reply-To; bh=/cKokepqAs8WW1wdwJMLcsJQDhjJ4pUtcldo2iiBTas=; b=KZLEYKxScL7uQWoLuqW84wkpCHrIUg+k0CitS/2Q9iT+4LeM/RP7RuYb1hbW8UH8EU2TMMBKeD4RkQ6EdubMyPtZq1sPY0zCGJRVxP4+y/A+QXjXtP1mCikeldvi/qGa; Received: from [70.36.224.178] (port=34912 helo=LawrenceLenovo) by box597.bluehost.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1YMhcS-0006VI-78; Sat, 14 Feb 2015 11:39:08 -0700 Reply-To: From: "Lawrence Rosen" To: Cc: "Lawrence Rosen" Subject: Open Standards and Open Source Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2015 10:39:05 -0800 Message-ID: <039101d04885$844ddd10$8ce99730$@rosenlaw.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0392_01D04842.762AEB30" X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 15.0 Thread-Index: AdBIhOyKscHgeylKSGatU+l8hkejdg== Content-Language: en-us X-Identified-User: {1397:box597.bluehost.com:rosenla1:rosenlaw.com} {sentby:smtp auth 70.36.224.178 authed with lrosen@rosenlaw.com} X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org ------=_NextPart_000_0392_01D04842.762AEB30 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Apache friends I'm going to be at the Linux Foundation Collaboration Summit 2015 in Santa Rosa next week. If there are any Apache folks there, please say hello. There is an extensive legal track with some really good speakers and topics. (Sorry, I believe it is too late to register.) I'll be speaking on Thursday about Open Standards, a topic that has occasionally interested the participants on this legal-discuss@ list. I'm mostly avoiding patents in my talk because important software standards organizations in the US already have strong royalty-free patent policies. Instead, I've been focused recently on the gymnastics performed by some standards organizations and their major large members to avoid giving open source communities the copyright to create derivative works. I will also discuss how these policies contradict the same companies' own arguments in the Oracle v. Google lawsuit, which is also about the effect of copyright law on open standards. I'm reading an interesting book about The Innovators: How a Group of Hackers, Geniuses, and Geeks Created the Digital Revolution, by Walter Isaacson. He writes: "These patent disputes [about the invention of the computer] were the forerunner of a major issue of the digital era: Should intellectual property be shared freely and placed whenever possible into the public domain and open-source commons? That course, largely followed by developers of the Internet and the Web, can spur innovation through the rapid dissemination and crowdsourced improvement of ideas. Or should intellectual property rights be protected and inventors allowed to profit from their proprietary ideas and innovations? That path, largely followed in the computer hardware, electronics, and semiconductor industries, can provide the financial incentives and capital investment that encourages innovation and rewards risk.... In 2011 a milestone was reached: Apple and Google spent more on lawsuits and payments involving patents than they did on research and development of new products." [Citing Charles Duhigg and Steve Lohr, "The Patent, Used as a Sword," New York Times, Oct. 7, 2012.] Lawrence Rosen "If this were legal advice it would have been accompanied by a bill." ------=_NextPart_000_0392_01D04842.762AEB30 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

To: Apache friends

 

I'm = going to be at the Linux Foundation Collaboration Summit 2015 in Santa = Rosa next week. If there are any Apache folks there, please say hello. = There is an extensive legal track with some really good speakers and = topics. (Sorry, I believe it is too late to register.)

 

I'll = be speaking on Thursday about Open Standards, a topic that has = occasionally interested the participants on this legal-discuss@ list. = I'm mostly avoiding patents in my talk because important software = standards organizations in the US already have strong royalty-free = patent policies. Instead, I've been focused recently on the gymnastics = performed by some standards organizations and their major large members = to avoid giving open source communities the copyright to create = derivative works. I will also discuss how these policies contradict the = same companies' own arguments in the Oracle v. Google lawsuit, = which is also about the effect of copyright law on open = standards.

 

I'm reading an interesting book about The = Innovators: How a Group of Hackers, Geniuses, and Geeks Created the = Digital Revolution, by Walter Isaacson. He writes:

 

"These patent disputes [about the = invention of the computer] were the forerunner of a major issue of the = digital era: Should intellectual property be shared freely and placed = whenever possible into the public domain and open-source commons? That = course, largely followed by developers of the Internet and the Web, can = spur innovation through the rapid dissemination and crowdsourced = improvement of ideas. Or should intellectual property rights be = protected and inventors allowed to profit from their proprietary ideas = and innovations? That path, largely followed in the computer hardware, = electronics, and semiconductor industries, can provide the financial = incentives and capital investment that encourages innovation and rewards = risk.... In 2011 a milestone was reached: Apple and Google spent more on = lawsuits and payments involving patents than they did on research and = development of new products." [Citing Charles Duhigg and Steve = Lohr, "The Patent, Used as a Sword," New York Times, Oct. 7, = 2012.] 

 

Lawrence Rosen

"If this were legal advice it would have been = accompanied by a bill."

------=_NextPart_000_0392_01D04842.762AEB30--