[cabf_validation] [cabfPAG] Domain Validation Methods Proposal

[kirk_hall at trendmicro.com]

Hmmm… the meaning of Essential Claims has already been defined as shown below, and it was heavily negotiated by all the legal departments of the browsers and CAs, and is part of the contract we all signed.  It seems pretty clear to me.  I’m not sure what more there is to discuss.

"Essential Claims" shall mean all claims in any patent or patent application in any jurisdiction in the world that would necessarily be infringed by implementation of the Final Guideline or Final Maintenance Guideline. A claim is necessarily infringed hereunder only when it is not possible to avoid infringing it because there is no non-infringing alternative for implementing the Normative Requirements of the Final Guideline or Final Maintenance Guideline. Existence of a non-infringing alternative shall be judged based on the state of the art at the time the guideline is adopted as a Final Guideline or Final Maintenance Guideline. For avoidance of doubt, if all the alternatives for performing a particular function or action would infringe claims of a patent or patent application, then all claims which cover such alternatives would be Essential Claims.

From: Jeremy Rowley [mailto:jeremy.rowley at digicert.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2015 1:01 PM
To: Ryan Sleevi
Cc: Kirk Hall (RD-US); pag at cabforum.org; validation at cabforum.org
Subject: RE: [cabfPAG] Domain Validation Methods Proposal

Gotcha – this is just a discussion on the scope and applicability of the policy. Makes sense, especially with how loose the essential claim term is.

From: Ryan Sleevi [mailto:sleevi at google.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2015 1:56 PM
To: Jeremy Rowley
Cc: kirk_hall at trendmicro.com<mailto:kirk_hall at trendmicro.com>; pag at cabforum.org<mailto:pag at cabforum.org>; validation at cabforum.org<mailto:validation at cabforum.org>
Subject: Re: [cabfPAG] Domain Validation Methods Proposal



On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 12:55 PM, Jeremy Rowley <jeremy.rowley at digicert.com<mailto:jeremy.rowley at digicert.com>> wrote:
Ah – thank. But how do you discuss whether there is patent issues without first discussing the patents disclosed?

The first and fundamental issue is to understand how the IPR policy applies to the section at all. You can't have meaningful discussion of the patents if the IPR policy doesn't apply.

<table class="TM_EMAIL_NOTICE"><tr><td><pre>
TREND MICRO EMAIL NOTICE
The information contained in this email and any attachments is confidential 
and may be subject to copyright or other intellectual property protection. 
If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to use or 
disclose this information, and we request that you notify us by reply mail or
telephone and delete the original message from your mail system.
</pre></td></tr></table>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://cabforum.org/pipermail/validation/attachments/20150729/5a2a856e/attachment.html