www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)" <Ross.Gard...@microsoft.com>
Subject RE: Adoption of new Software and Document License
Date Sun, 07 Jun 2015 04:01:29 GMT
Larry, an important correction. You say "I'm not "new here." I know "how this works." Democracy
is a word usually applied to it"

I'm afraid we have never claimed to be a democracy. We are a do-ocracy.

Ross

Sent from my Windows Phone
________________________________
From: Lawrence Rosen<mailto:lrosen@rosenlaw.com>
Sent: ‎6/‎6/‎2015 2:59 PM
To: legal-discuss@apache.org<mailto:legal-discuss@apache.org>
Cc: Lawrence Rosen<mailto:lrosen@rosenlaw.com>
Subject: RE: Adoption of new Software and Document License

Rich Bowen wrote:

> It is utterly beyond me why we continue to have this identical conversation again and
again.
Rich, I have done what you requested. I submitted explicit proposed policies so that the board
and members and PMCs and our customers can discuss them rationally and perhaps determine for
themselves.

All I'm waiting on is this: Maybe you will read what I've submitted and propose amendments?
Or vote on them publicly outside of executive committee after discussion?

You're right. I'm not "new here." I know "how this works." Democracy is a word usually applied
to it. Even if repetitive. I was gay-married a year ago because attitudes when Apache was
incorporated in the 1990's finally were changed by stubborn people.

Best regards,

/Larry


From: Rich Bowen [mailto:rbowen@rcbowen.com]
Sent: Saturday, June 6, 2015 2:29 PM
To: legal-discuss@apache.org; Lawrence Rosen
Subject: Re: Adoption of new Software and Document License


It is utterly beyond me why we continue to have this identical conversation again and again.

Larry, if you want to document, for each of our projects, what standards and patents they
implement, just friken do it. We are a do-ocracy. Submit a patch. Quit asserting that *someone*
should do it. That is not how things get done here.

You have made it abundantly clear what you think should happen. Many people have made it clear
what they think of your ideas. But if you want anything to happen, you have to submit a patch.
You're not new here. You know how this works.
On Jun 6, 2015 4:29 PM, "Lawrence Rosen" <lrosen@rosenlaw.com<mailto:lrosen@rosenlaw.com>>
wrote:
[Someone asked me a good off-list question about the new W3C Software and Document License.
Here is my on-list response, which is offered with no warranty nor as attorney-client advice.
Ask your own attorney!]

If Apache members or customers are much worried about liability for contributory patent infringement
merely by redistributing some Apache software, read the below quotation from the 2014 Jury
Instructions of the Federal Circuit Bar Association (and the cases listed there).

It seems that the distributor of an ASF software product that implements a widely-used, patent
and copyright royalty-free W3C standard is not likely to be held liable as a contributory
infringer for other miscellaneous patents that we later discover happen to read on that software.

That's usually good for ASF and distributors!

And it is another good reason to "advertise" in our NOTICE file that our software implements
specific FOSS-compatible W3C standards capable of substantial non-infringing uses, in compliance
with the new W3C license.

/Larry

>From http://www.modeljuryinstructions.com/tag/contributory-infringement/:

B.3.3. INDIRECT INFRINGEMENT—CONTRIBUTORY INFRINGEMENT
[Patent holder] argues that [alleged infringer] is liable for contributory infringement by
contributing to the direct infringement of the [ ] patent by [insert name or other description
of direct infringer]. As with direct infringement, you must determine contributory infringement
on a claim-by-claim basis.
[Alleged infringer] is liable for contributory infringement of a claim if [patent holder]
proves by a preponderance of the evidence:
(1)               [alleged infringer] sells, offers to sell, or imports within the United
States a component of a product, or apparatus for use in a process, during the time the [
] patent is in force;
(2)               the component or apparatus has no substantial, noninfringing use;
(3)               the component or apparatus constitutes a material part of the invention;
(4)               [alleged infringer] is aware of the [ ] patent and knows that the [products
or processes] for which the [component or apparatus] has no other substantial use may be covered
by a claim of  the [ ] patent or may satisfy a claim of the [ ] patent under the doctrine
of equivalents; and
(5)               that use directly infringes the claim.
In order to prove contributory infringement, [patent holder] must prove that each of the above
requirements is met. This proof of each requirement must be by a preponderance of the evidence,
i.e., that it is more likely than not that each of the above requirements is met.



Mime
View raw message