[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ubl-dev] UBL and proposed IPR policy changes
Jon, Why would we need to incorporate in UBL any technology that requires licensing? This is what I do not follow. Seems like there's moves afoot to encourage inclusion into specifications content that requires licensing. IMHO - that's the opposite of what approaches such as UBL are all about - eg there are no impediments to use. I appreciate your efforts to try and clarify this all however - the OASIS heirarchy is being strangely silent on all this - understandably complex and confusing situation. I'm just wanting clarity and simplicity first and foremost. Thanks, DW ----- Original Message ----- From: <jon.bosak@sun.com> To: <ubl-dev@lists.oasis-open.org>; <ipr-member-review@lists.oasis-open.org> Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2004 11:47 AM Subject: Re: [ubl-dev] UBL and proposed IPR policy changes > [david@drrw.info:] > > | I'm looking at the 3 IPR choices that OASIS is proposing, and I do > | not see that any of them fit here for UBL. > > The category called (somewhat confusingly, in my opinion) > "Restricted RF" is the one that UBL fits in. > > | In fact the only two TCs I could see these changes definately > | working for is the BPEL and the UDDI TCs. My interpretation is > | that the IPR choices are makingextended licensing requirements to > | become the normal modus operadi - instead of them being rare and > | exceptional practice. > > Take a closer look at Sections 10.2 and 10.2.2: > > 10.2 RF Mode TC Requirements > > For an OASIS Specification developed by an RF Mode TC, each > Obligated Party in such TC hereby covenants that, upon > request and subject to Section 11, it will grant to any > OASIS Party or third party: a nonexclusive, worldwide, > non-sublicensable, perpetual patent license (or an > equivalent non-assertion covenant) under its Essential > Claims covered by its Contribution Obligations or > Participation Obligations without payment of royalties or > fees and (subject to the applicable Section 10.2.1 or > 10.2.2) under other fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory > terms to make, have made, use, market, import, offer to sell > and sell, and to otherwise distribute Products that > implement such OASIS Specification. Such license need not > extend to features of a Product that are not required to > comply with the Normative Portions of such OASIS > Specification. Granting of such license may be subject to > the agreement by the Licensee to grant a reciprocal license > to its Essential Claims (if any) to [that Obligated > Party][all implementers of such OASIS Specification], and/or > a term providing that the license may be suspended with > respect to the Licensee when that Licensee sues [the > Obligated Party][any implementer] for infringement of claims > essential to implement such OASIS Specification. > > 10.2.2 Restricted RF-Licensing Terms > > With TCs operating under the Restricted RF IPR Mode, > Obligated Parties may not impose any further conditions or > restrictions beyond those specifically mentioned in Section > 10.2 on the use of any technology or intellectual property > rights, or other restrictions on behavior of the Licensee, > but may include reasonable, customary terms relating to > operation or maintenance of the license relationship such as > the following: choice of law and dispute resolution. > > All a patent holder is granted in the category described in 10.2.2 > is the right to specify the court of jurisdiction. I think that's > about as good as it gets. > > Jon > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]