[cabfpub] Revised Draft of IPR Policy and Resolution

[Geoff Keating]

On Nov 8, 2012, at 9:40 AM, Ben Wilson <ben at digicert.com> wrote:

> Gerv,
> One scenario that you did not include (although I must admit that I am not positive on whether the IPR Policy addresses this fully) is where the licensor is sued (by anybody) and wants to "claw-back" its RF license as a defensive measure.

I think I'd like to handle that on a case-by-case basis (meaning I definitely want to know which patents this might occur for) but in general I am not in favor of it because of how it'd work in practice.  For example, suppose one CA produces a brilliant new innovation, perhaps in an unrelated field like virus checking.  Another CA blatently copies it, perhaps doesn't even bother to write their own code.  The copying CA has a standards-essential patent. When the innovator threatens to sue, the copying CA says that if they do, they'll stop the innovator's CA business using their patent.

> Ben  
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-bounces at cabforum.org [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Gervase Markham
> Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2012 7:40 AM
> To: Jon Callas
> Cc: David Rudin (LCA); Jay Kendry; Heather_Molleur at symantec.com; Marc Braner; public at cabforum.org
> Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Revised Draft of IPR Policy and Resolution
> 
> On 05/11/12 21:14, Jon Callas wrote:
>>> Ben – I have never understood what is meant by “stand around 
>>> licensing”.  Can you define?
>> 
>> Ben did a good job of that. We've also called it "stand around 
>> liability." The concern is having to give a license or be liable 
>> without making an affirmative act, merely by standing around, as Ben said.
> 
> "Stand-around liability" could also be referred to as "no-submarine licensing".
> 
> Here are three possible outcomes from "standing around" under the current IPR policy:
> 
> 1) A guideline passes, and you have no IP which reads on it. Fine.
> 
> 2) A guideline passes, and you have IP which reads on it, but you planned to license it RF for the good of the web anyway. Fine.
> 
> 3) A guideline passes, and you have IP which reads on it, and you do not wish to license it RF, but you did because you didn't declare an exclusion. This may not be so good for you, but it is a good thing for the Forum as a whole, because it means you can't sue ("submarine") anyone else over a Guideline we've passed.
> 
> 
> As I understand it, you, Entrust, want the _ability_ (not saying _desire_ - I know you continue to maintain you are not eager to sue, and I believe you) to be a member of the Forum, and see a Guideline come into being, get hashed out, voted on, and pass, and then sue Forum members over IP you have in that guideline with those members did not know about (because you didn't tell them, perhaps because you didn't know).
> 
> I don't want you to have that ability, no matter whether you noticed the IP was infringed before the Guideline passed or after. I'd say being part of the Forum means collaborating with us in keeping patent lawsuits far from our standards, by declaring infringed IP before we get to a vote. That takes effort, requires understanding of ones own IP portfolio (not an unreasonable request, I hope) and is undeniably a responsibility. But it comes with the territory. You must gain some advantages from being members, otherwise you wouldn't want to be. This is an obligation which comes with those advantages.
> 
> This seems to me to be the fundamental conflict we keep hitting. You want the privileges of CAB Forum membership without the obligation to disclose IP you own which reads on _all_ CAB Forum standards (you are happy to do it for some where you 'participate', but not all). I say that we are small enough and produce few enough standards that it's reasonable that membership requires disclosure for all standards.
> 
> Gerv
> _______________________________________________
> Public mailing list
> Public at cabforum.org
> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Public mailing list
> Public at cabforum.org
> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2758 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20121108/4105e35d/attachment-0002.p7s>