[cabfpub] IPR policy and authorial intent

Peter Bowen pzb at amzn.com
Tue Nov 8 17:23:56 UTC 2016

> On Nov 8, 2016, at 9:05 AM, Ryan Sleevi via Public <public at cabforum.org> wrote:
> As has been stated elsewhere, members must be aware that if Position 1 is accepted under the standard of "authorial intent" - rather than what your legal teams reviewed and executed - then it takes only three members to trigger an IP search for you - and that of your Affiliates (See Section 3 of https://cabforum.org/wp-content/uploads/CABF-IPR-Policy-v.1.2.pdf <https://cabforum.org/wp-content/uploads/CABF-IPR-Policy-v.1.2.pdf> and related to understand the obligations of affiliates). Any member that failed to conduct such a search, and exclude such IP, runs the risk that the Forum may incorporate such work into a Final Guideline by a vote. To accept Position 1, at present, and in the absence of any other ballots to clarify process or interpretation, would likely make it untenable for any member who holds IP - in any area, whether or not it relates to CAs or otherwise - to attempt to bring it into scope of the Forum and potentially invoke RF licensing if members do not diligently exclude.

As a reminder, "Affiliates" includes companies under common majority ownership, right?  So if a member has a majority owner, then that owner's other companies are in scope, right?

For example, reading Wikipedia (so this might be wrong), Trustwave (a CA/BF member) is owned by SingTel. Wikipedia says SingTel is majority owned by Temasek which has a sole shareholder of Singapore's Ministry of Finance and Signapore also owns GIC Private Limited.  So it seems any claim owned by any entity majority owned by Temasek or GIC is subject to our IPR policy.

I can see how this gets very complicated quickly :)


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20161108/7d7bf1f1/attachment-0003.html>

More information about the Public mailing list