[cabfpub] Revised Draft of IPR Policy and Resolution

[Ben Wilson]

For further discussion, here is a revised draft of the IPR Policy redlined
from Marc Braner's draft of 19-Oct-2012.  It contemplates that the
governance bylaws will be adopted with a provision covering the creation of
Working Groups.  The draft of the governance bylaws previously circulated
stated, "The Forum shall not be required to submit any matter to a Working
Group, but may itself draft requirements and guidelines without a Working
Group in its discretion."  This provision might need to be edited so that
the IPR Policy and Bylaws are consistent.

 

From: public-bounces at cabforum.org [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On
Behalf Of Ben Wilson
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 5:31 PM
To: public at cabforum.org; CABFMAN
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Revised Draft of IPR Policy and Resolution

 

All,

Just as an update on the progress of the draft of the IPR Policy, there are
still some revisions being discussed regarding: the definition of
"participation," CAB Forum work groups, the safeharbor from stand-around RF
licensing, and misunderstandings about the scope of the IPR.  I believe that
the IPR committee will be re-working the draft based on the work that they
have previously done, and hopefully, some more edits will bring us closer to
a resolution of this matter.  I'd urge anyone interested in this issue to
contribute to the discussion, whether it is on this list or by joining and
participating in the work of the IPR committee.  

Ben

 

From: public-bounces at cabforum.org [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On
Behalf Of Ben Wilson
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2012 1:47 AM
To: public at cabforum.org
Subject: [cabfpub] Revised Draft of IPR Policy and Resolution

 

All,

 

During the discussion yesterday on the IPR Policy, we noted a potential gap
in distinguishing conduct giving rise to RF licensing versus other
involvement in the CA/Browser Forum (what some have called "Stand-Around
Liability").  To recap this morning's discussion, Marc Braner explained that
the IPR working group had met for over two months and created version 1.03
to address the concerns of Entrust, Identrust, and others, while trying to
make as few changes as possible in order to not lose members who have
already signed.  He said that in his opinion we may now have a viable
solution for everyone, but that there is no such thing as a perfect IPR
Policy.  Also, there is nothing that precludes further work on the IPR
Policy down the road, but it is very important that we get a new IPR Policy
in place.  

 

As a general matter, there were only two major changes to the existing IPR
Policy-- (1) to make licensing obligations participation-based to address
stand-around liability, and (2) to change the definition of affiliates for
portfolios of companies that are indirectly related.  The goal of the
participation-based model, is that if you don't participate, there is no
obligation.  If you do participate, then you have a duty to license, but you
also have the opportunity to exclude IP from licensing.  

 

There was extensive discussion on what should constitute participation.  In
response, I've attempted to keep "participation" simple by defining it as
either (a) making a "Contribution", which is already a defined term in the
IPR Policy, or (b) by voting on a Final Guideline.  Other options discussed
earlier today included attending two technical working group meetings and
segmenting Forum discussions into working groups (including a general
discussion group for non-technical discussions).  I felt that these
approaches would be too complicated to define, so instead of using the
yet-to-be-defined term "technical work group," from the IPR committee's
draft, I have changed the term to "Technical Participation" throughout the
document.  Because of grammar constraints in some places, I've used
"Contribution or vote" instead of "Technical Participation", but Technical
Participation is also defined in the definitions (contributing or voting),
so there is internal consistency.     

 

There was much concern that we review and discuss the IPR thoroughly before
moving forward.  We cannot risk moving forward only to find out at the last
minute that some member cannot sign.  Dean suggested that Entrust,
Identrust, and others should be involved in the discussion as well.  I do
not know how to accomplish this given the current configurations of the
listserv.  I made various attempts to send this email while cc'ing the IPR
representatives of Apple, Symantec, Microsoft, Entrust and Identrust, so if
someone can figure a way, let me know.

 

Finally, at this point, I would like to get all potential issues fleshed
out.  As I said on the call, "speak now or forever hold your peace," but
equally, as many have noted during the work on this IPR Policy, it is
unlikely that everyone will be 100% satisfied with this IPR, so when you
comment also indicate if you consider your particular issue to be a true
"deal killer."   If you do not indicate any true "deal killers", then we'll
all assume that you will be prepared to sign the IPR Agreement when it is
presented to your organization for signature.  

 

Attached please find a redlined version of the IPR Policy and a draft IPR
Resolution, to which I've added a provision exempting designated
representatives of standards or regulatory bodies.  

 

Ben

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20121031/5aca5adc/attachment-0003.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: CABForumIPR_103112-btw.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 98304 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20121031/5aca5adc/attachment-0003.doc>