[cabfpub] Entrust/IPR policy explained

[Eddy Nigg (StartCom Ltd.)]

Hi Tim,

On 08/10/2012 06:24 PM, From Tim Moses:
>
> We did not agree with the IPR for three reasons:
>
>   * The presumption that innovation protected by patents – but not
>     other IP -- should be free.  Unlike many members of the forum, we
>     have spent significant sums to create a substantial patent
>     portfolio related to certificate management and saw the IPR policy
>     as a coercive  attempt to decrease significantly the value of that
>     portfolio
>   * The administrative requirement to maintain our portfolio exempt
>     from the royalty free licensing provisions of the IPR would be
>     burdensome for a small company with a large relevant portfolio
>   * The provision in the IPR requiring us to bind all our related
>     companies would require us to bind portfolio companies of our
>     owner in unrelated businesses, and that is particularly
>     problematic for privately-held portfolio companies.
>

Unfortunately this is not entirely the same thing that was published 
here: 
http://www.entrust.com/news/2012-08-09-CA-Browser-Forums-Mandated-Royalty-Free-Intellectual-Property-Policy-Change-Requires-Entrust-to-Withdraw-from-Organization-it-Co-Founded-Co-Chaired-for-6-Years

I'm not and wasn't on the forefront on this effort, but when reading 
http://www.cabforum.org/IPR_Policy_V1.pdf it appears to me that 
Entrust's public statements talk about a different agreement.

The claim that the agreement requires to provide a royalty-free license 
to other members is a lie which I'm sure you are very well aware of. 
There are other claims in this article which makes the entire thing 
questionable.

> Manymembers hadsimilar orother reasons for not signingup to the 
> IPR policy and we understand that about 40% of the membership has 
> withdrawn.
>

Out of those 40% the majority were not active members and haven't 
contributed anything and nothing during the last few years I've been 
here. It's however indeed regrettable that some important members left 
for the time-being.

> Unfortunately, we are aware that a few remaining forum members have 
> inaccurately described both our motives for leaving the Forum and our 
> resulting ability to provide standards compliant solutions.  We are 
> disappointed with this tactic and will pursue any means necessary to 
> protect our reputation and business.
>

So why is Entrust attacking many /smaller, unproven CAs/ instead, that 
have absolutely nothing to do with it? This isn't less disappointing if 
you ask me.


Regards
Signer: 	Eddy Nigg, COO/CTO
	StartCom Ltd. <http://www.startcom.org>
XMPP: 	startcom at startcom.org <xmpp:startcom at startcom.org>
Blog: 	Join the Revolution! <http://blog.startcom.org>
Twitter: 	Follow Me <http://twitter.com/eddy_nigg>


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20120810/159d53a8/attachment-0004.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4506 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20120810/159d53a8/attachment-0002.p7s>