[cabfpub] IPR Exclusion notices

[Dean Coclin]

Thanks, now I understand the source of the confusion. For the benefit of all members, let me clarify the situation.

 

At the time I sent the email (21st), I had not read the IPR policy requirements around disclosure. The email I sent to the forum was triggered by Peter’s “reminder” email on April 13th which said, “For item 9, the revised IPR policy, should we also be reminding people that we are coming up on 60 days from the Effective Date?  I haven’t seen disclosures for published, but maybe I just missed them (or there are none, which would be great).  This prompted me to send the email so that it was public. However, as I stated on the last call, I had received the disclosure from Symantec’s attorney on April 13th. This was prior to the 60 day deadline stated in the ballot and satisfies the requirement of the IPR policy. 

 

As I stated earlier, I’m quite surprised by the delivery method specified in the policy, which is contrary to normal Forum publicity methods. Given Google’s publicized stance on forum transparency and active participation in the PAG, I’m at a loss to understand this.

 

 

From: Ryan Sleevi [mailto:sleevi at google.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2016 6:00 PM
To: Dean Coclin <Dean_Coclin at symantec.com>
Cc: CABFPub <public at cabforum.org>
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] IPR Exclusion notices

 

 

 

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

“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/20160505/5a9509b8/attachment-0003.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5747 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20160505/5a9509b8/attachment-0001.p7s>