[cabfpub] IPR Exclusion notices

Ryan Sleevi sleevi at google.com
Wed May 4 21:59:58 UTC 2016

On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 2:50 PM, Dean Coclin <Dean_Coclin at symantec.com>

> “For the record, after review with our Legal and Standards teams, our
> position is that neither disclosure adhered to the procedure set forward by
> the ballot, and as such, do not represent valid disclosures according to
> our policy.”
> I’m curious as to why you believe this to be the case? Gerv’s response
> indicated differently so it would be helpful I think to all if you could
> indicate how Google came to this conclusion.
Gerv and I appear to disagree with respect to Symantec, but agree with
respect to the other aspects.

I don't know if Gerv has spoken with his Legal team, or is representing a
personal opinion, but your email dated on April 21,
https://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/2016-April/007353.html , indicates
you believe that that email, and no prior email that Symantec employees may
have directed to you in your role as chair, represents Symantec's formal
exclusion notice.

Since the discussion, you've suggested that your coworkers notifications to
you represents notification to the Chair, but that seems to be an
interpretation counter-factual with your April 21 statements.

In the end, this is a complex matter that we don't believe the Forum itself
will be able to resolve, short of adjudication should it arise that
Symantec's patents cover Essential Claims (for which we make no statement),
and for which there arises legal uncertainty whether or not such patents
are covered by the Forum's IPR policy.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20160504/218e64ac/attachment-0003.html>

More information about the Public mailing list