OASIS ebXML Collaboration Protocol Profile and Agreement TC
ebXML CPPA Technical Committee Teleconference
Wednesday, May 29, 2002 ebXML Voting Meeting Addressing Specification Approval and Relation to IPR Issues
James Bryce Clark
Noelle Britton, Drake-Certivo
Monica Martin, Drake-Certivo
Karl Best, OASIS
Dale introduced an idea to disentangle concerns about the IPR situation from impacting voting instead on technical grounds to move the specification forward. The basic idea would be to form a resolution expressing the TC position on the IPR situation. The vote on specifications would then not have to function as a symbolic comment about the IPR situation, nor would it have to serve as a means to exert "pressure" - a bargaining chip, so to speak.
Arijit expressed the idea that the specification might itself be linked to prior work and so provide some basis for those interested in contesting IPR claims in the area. He also suggested that the Chair might represent the TC in conversations with IBM clarifying the IBM policy. Arijit also indicated that separating the resolution about IPR from the vote was of interest. Dale did not see why the TC Chair's scope would include entering into IPR related conversations.
Jamie noted that the conversations with IBM were progressing and that the two sticking points-unclear language pertaining to "reciprocity" and a peculiar limitation to 2 versions-were under discussion. Jamie also claimed that "No" votes on OASIS submission usefully kept pressure on to arrive at a clarified position.
Kartha first asked what had changed in the second IPR position statement, suggested that a "No" vote on moving the specification to OASIS may be useful as a way of signaling to IBM the seriousness with which the TC regards the IPR issues and raised a question about what would be wrong with delaying the OASIS approval process by three months.
Tony emphasized his concern that the vague "reciprocal" condition might prevent a small company that does not have IPR from implementing the CPA functionality. Similarly larger companies feared that they would have to release all IPR to implement CPA functionality.
Kevin Liu noted that the OASIS.IPR.3.2 governs the situation where a contributor has disclosed the existence of its claimed IP rights. Accordingly, SAP was interested whether the OASIS Executive Director had obtained from the claimant a written assurance that any party will be able to obtain the right to implement, use and distribute the technology. SAP wonders whether IBM's assurances that they will provide the patented technology on a royalty-free basis are sufficient to serve as a written assurance under IPR.3.2.
Specifically, has the patent/patent application been formally disclosed to the Executive Director?
Also, do IBM's statements to date about the terms for use of their patented technology serve as a binding written assurance for the other parties?
The answers to these questions were not resolved.
Dale claimed that since there was some interest in seeing whether we could write a resolution that expressed TC concerns about the IPR situation that would still allow the specification approval process to move forward, that we should permit draft language to the list in the hopes of being prepared to formulate a resolution Friday.
Jamie moved to extend voting meeting until end of business May 31. Seconded. Approved.
We will meet again at the usual time Friday, May 31.