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 4002F17DFA for ; Thu, 4 Jun 2015 16:07:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 2989 invoked by uid 500); 4 Jun 2015 16:07:01 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-legal-discuss-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 2812 invoked by uid 500); 4 Jun 2015 16:07:01 -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 2797 invoked by uid 99); 4 Jun 2015 16:07:00 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO spamd4-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 04 Jun 2015 16:07:00 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd4-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd4-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id 09E3CC08D9 for ; Thu, 4 Jun 2015 16:07:00 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd4-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 3.553 X-Spam-Level: *** X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.553 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=3, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.652, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=disabled Authentication-Results: spamd4-us-west.apache.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (768-bit key) header.d=robweir.com Received: from mx1-eu-west.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd4-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.11]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4L4rJ4Wee47e for ; Thu, 4 Jun 2015 16:06:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gproxy1-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com (gproxy1-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com [69.89.25.95]) by mx1-eu-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-eu-west.apache.org) with SMTP id 9B439249FD for ; Thu, 4 Jun 2015 16:06:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 23222 invoked by uid 0); 4 Jun 2015 16:06:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cmgw2) (10.0.90.83) by gproxy1.mail.unifiedlayer.com with SMTP; 4 Jun 2015 16:06:38 -0000 Received: from host181.hostmonster.com ([74.220.207.181]) by cmgw2 with id cFyz1q01G3vMl7N01Fz2n7; Thu, 04 Jun 2015 09:59:02 -0600 X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=efyuId0H c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=Nqt+CQggbyvFpZFa6LgsgA==:117 a=Nqt+CQggbyvFpZFa6LgsgA==:17 a=DsvgjBjRAAAA:8 a=f5113yIGAAAA:8 a=KNaV0bruAAAA:8 a=pGLkceISAAAA:8 a=1XWaLZrsAAAA:8 a=lTFyYaU1PtcA:10 a=OLna0t3NBHYA:10 a=XAFQembCKUMA:10 a=wm14QNnAAAAA:8 a=e4XAuCvxAAAA:8 a=4F77bVRYAAAA:8 a=mV9VRH-2AAAA:8 a=tfZrWAVtHPnGQ8OrLw8A:9 a=EXd3W0UwvfskhN7X:21 a=YH2ZACczfGwROy5g:21 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=vKkKvlSAFbAA:10 a=53mUTW9PLbcA:10 a=bOhpGsK9oacA:10 a=m5V0tvwJRMwA:10 a=LYf5YU6yLB5I8A1R91wA:9 a=rF9fULUd1R9fZBXq:21 a=flA9nmBpB6TR3u6s:21 a=mE04urqQ7Cwo8sto:21 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=robweir.com; s=default; h=Content-Type:To:From:Subject:Message-ID:Date:References:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version; bh=wgUff55fg1GX06gHo4lOVtTRlL4N8IyicUeVhdK7X1E=; b=n0T5C1XgRyzMJppBGihs3Xzm2sqVBYOPVrn9HskiFFFIZa3rQZsGsS4vhafmrSGB16zyj/2GND2O0WLQzAR3KEI6/gJJS1JXbvhPdsWWb9Sa+a2mPJcS8y0rXBhHSlEY; Received: from [209.85.213.175] (port=38089 helo=mail-ig0-f175.google.com) by host181.hostmonster.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1Z0Xf9-0002V1-Ee for legal-discuss@apache.org; Thu, 04 Jun 2015 10:06:35 -0600 Received: by igblz2 with SMTP id lz2so42757146igb.1 for ; Thu, 04 Jun 2015 09:06:32 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.107.40.144 with SMTP id o138mr8326687ioo.66.1433433992865; Thu, 04 Jun 2015 09:06:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.79.11.71 with HTTP; Thu, 4 Jun 2015 09:06:32 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <0ebc01d093f7$197e7ef0$4c7b7cd0$@rosenlaw.com> <0ffa01d09426$f7fb8b30$e7f2a190$@rosenlaw.com> <2085234F-FA5C-4637-90F0-35A700D677C3@oracle.com> <107401d0943d$15857c90$409075b0$@rosenlaw.com> <2cc201d09bca$9ad08400$d0718c00$@rosenlaw.com> Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2015 12:06:32 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Proposal: Disclosure of patents by Apache projects From: Rob Weir To: "legal-discuss@apache.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1141f414f454500517b35b58 X-Identified-User: {1114:host181.hostmonster.com:robweirh:robweir.com} {sentby:smtp auth 209.85.213.175 authed with rob@robweir.com} --001a1141f414f454500517b35b58 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 5:43 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: > On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 5:22 PM, Rich Bowen wrote: > > > > On May 31, 2015 4:54 PM, "Greg Stein" wrote: > >> > >> On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 12:52 PM, Lawrence Rosen > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> ... > >> > >>> This means that an opinion that a patent is "just plain BS, IMHO," is > not > >>> a relevant opinion at this stage of determining infringement. > >>> > >>> As for patent validity, there is nobody at Apache who is qualified to > >>> analyze that for others. The most ASF can do is to disclose what we are > >>> aware of in a NOTICE file and let our customers do their own analysis > if > >>> they want to. > >> > >> Aren't we similarly unqualified to determine whether we infringe? I > would > >> say "yes", and I'm sure you would agree. > >> > >> Thus, to water out random claims of infringement from random developers, > >> we must wait until the patent holder *informs* us that we (likely) > infringe. > >> Until the patent holder wants to assert that, then I don't think we're > >> qualified to make *any* judgement, including whether it is > >> important/relevant to provide notice. > > > > Forgive my ignorance, but, surely, if we are aware that we infringe, > > wouldn't we be compelled to rectify that situation before making another > > release? > > Our policy indeed is that "We never knowingly incorporate patented > technology in our own products unless such technology has been offered > free for everyone."[1] > > So what about patent claims necessarily infringed in the implementation of a standard by an Apache project, where the patent holder has agreed to a royalty free license for implementors of that standard? I hope we consider that to be sufficiently "free for everyone" even though it is not necessarily free for anyone outside of implementers of that standard. -Rob > As to what we do when we are made aware of a potential infringement: > we (through our VP of Legal Affairs) will seek advice from counsel as > to how to proceed. > > > This whole conversation seems to assume that we would, at any point, > make a > > release while being aware of an infringement, which should never happen. > > - Sam Ruby > > [1] https://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org > > --001a1141f414f454500517b35b58 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 5:43 PM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net= > wrote:
O= n Sun, May 31, 2015 at 5:22 PM, Rich Bowen <rbowen@rcbowen.com> wrote:
>
> On May 31, 2015 4:54 PM, "Greg Stein" <gstein@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 12:52 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> ...
>>
>>> This means that an opinion that a patent is "just plain B= S, IMHO," is not
>>> a relevant opinion at this stage of determining infringement.<= br> >>>
>>> As for patent validity, there is nobody at Apache who is quali= fied to
>>> analyze that for others. The most ASF can do is to disclose wh= at we are
>>> aware of in a NOTICE file and let our customers do their own a= nalysis if
>>> they want to.
>>
>> Aren't we similarly unqualified to determine whether we infrin= ge? I would
>> say "yes", and I'm sure you would agree.
>>
>> Thus, to water out random claims of infringement from random devel= opers,
>> we must wait until the patent holder *informs* us that we (likely)= infringe.
>> Until the patent holder wants to assert that, then I don't thi= nk we're
>> qualified to make *any* judgement, including whether it is
>> important/relevant to provide notice.
>
> Forgive my ignorance, but, surely, if we are aware that we infringe, > wouldn't we be compelled to rectify that situation before making a= nother
> release?

Our policy indeed is that "We never knowingly incorporate paten= ted
technology in our own products unless such technology has = been offered
free for everyone."[1]


So what about patent claims necessaril= y infringed in the implementation of a standard by an Apache project, where= the patent holder has agreed to a royalty free license for implementors of= that standard?=C2=A0=C2=A0 I hope we consider that to be sufficiently &quo= t;free for everyone" even though it is not necessarily free for anyone= outside of implementers of that standard.

-Rob
=

=C2=A0
As to what we do when we are made aware of a potential infringement:
we (through our VP of Legal Affairs) will seek advice from counsel as
to how to proceed.

> This whole conversation seems to assume that we would, at any point, m= ake a
> release while being aware of an infringement, which should never happe= n.

- Sam Ruby

[1] https://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org


--001a1141f414f454500517b35b58--