[standards-jig] Question on JEP-0001

Ashvil ashvil at i3connect.net
Fri May 3 07:29:00 UTC 2002

Hi David,
    I am ok with all your suggestions. I would suggest that Peter choses
something simple for now. And let Peter decide the right forum and process
to refine this.


----- Original Message -----
>From: "David Waite" <mass at akuma.org>
To: <standards-jig at jabber.org>
Sent: Friday, May 03, 2002 11:02 AM
Subject: Re: [standards-jig] Question on JEP-0001

> 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
> >>concerns?
> >>
> >
> >Yes. This would address my concern.
> >
> >To be more fair to the authors, another statement that would work could
> >"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
> >contribute to the JEP process.
> >
> >Regards,
> >Ashvil
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Standards-JIG mailing list
> >Standards-JIG at jabber.org
> >http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/standards-jig
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Standards-JIG mailing list
> Standards-JIG at jabber.org
> http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/standards-jig

More information about the Standards mailing list