[cabfpub] IPR Exclusion notices

Ryan Sleevi sleevi at google.com
Wed May 4 23:18:21 UTC 2016

On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 4:09 PM, Moudrick M. Dadashov <md at ssc.lt> wrote:

> If not a legal opinion, maybe "common understanding" would still be useful.
> As a simple rule I'd suggest to respect any legally binding exclusions of
> a given jurisdiction (to apply to all CAs that do business in that
> jurisdiction). Does that make sense?

I'm not sure who you suggest respects them. The Forum, as a non-legal
entity, cannot declare these as valid or not, nor can Symantec challenge
that ruling (because of the non-legal entity). What we have is a IPR policy
that is an agreement made collectively between the members of the Forum. As
such, it's the necessary role of each member to independently evaluate
whether or not Symantec's exclusion was meeting the obligation of the
agreement. If Symantec were to bring enforcement action on the basis that
they believe their exclusions are valid and conforming with the policy, the
question about whether that is legally accurate is, in effect, a contract
dispute, and alternative legal interpretations may be met. One such
interpretation is that it was not conforming, and as such, any such claim
would, if essential, be subject to the Forum's IPR policy. Another
interpretation is that it was conforming. How this matter gets settled is
not something the Forum can declare, but rather one that would necessarily
need to be adjudicated.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20160504/aeb956a7/attachment-0003.html>

More information about the Public mailing list