[standards-jig] Question on JEP-0001

David Waite mass at akuma.org
Fri May 3 05:32:04 UTC 2002


This is more of a legal/business question perhaps, I don't know if this 
is the best list for the topic :-)

I know what I would like to see (not being a lawyer):

- A position that standards and informational documents will not be 
recognised (ratified) if there are patents preventing royalty-free use 
in a compliant implementation, and that replacements will be sought for 
existing recognised documents if patents preventing royalty-free use are 
discovered which can then again be used royalty-free.

- A global statement that specific (found) patents are licensed for 
royalty-free use by implementations of standards established by or 
informational documents recognised by the Jabber Software Foundation.

- A statement per JEP that authors license any intellectual property 
claims they have relating to a document for use by all parties in 
implementation of that specific document, and any other document 
recognized by the Jabber Software Foundation in the future.

- A contract required for membership stating that patents held 
pertaining to any document recognized by the Jabber Software Foundation 
before or during membership will be licensed for use in documents 
recognised by the Foundation.


Now, whether all of that would be acceptable is another story. I would 
imagine that there would need to be some sort of contesting period which 
allows a member owning a patent to explicitly state they do not want to 
license said patent to the Foundation. There might also be a rule that 
patents do _not_ automatically get assigned for informational documents.

I do think it is reasonable for members wishing to protect their own 
intellectual property rights in this manner to bear the brunt of 
determining what could infringe on a patent within a reasonable period 
of time.

The larger problem will be (IMHO) in discovery of patents outside of our 
own membership affecting standards - we don't have contributions by the 
large corporate forces (Microsoft, IBM, and AOL for our particular 
technology).

-David Waite (who loathes 99.8% of Software Patents)

Ashvil wrote:

>>"The authors affirm that they have made no intellectual property claims
>>associated with the protocols defined in this document."
>>
>>If all JEPs contained this wording (or something similar to it -- we can
>>look at what the IETF and W3C use for their docs), would that address your
>>concerns?
>>
>
>Yes. This would address my concern.
>
>To be more fair to the authors, another statement that would work could be
>"Any intellectual property that the authors hold associated with the
>protocols defined in this document will be licensed for use on a
>royalty-free basis."
>
>This would enable the authors (or their companies) to file patents and still
>contribute to the JEP process.
>
>Regards,
>Ashvil
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Standards-JIG mailing list
>Standards-JIG at jabber.org
>http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/standards-jig
>






More information about the Standards mailing list