BPEL IP rights and patent

[Matthieu Riou <ma...@gmail.com>]

Hi all,

We've finally got an answer about the intellectual property issues
surrounding the WS-BPEL specification. And it's pretty good news! Cliff
Schmidt has posted it on legal-discuss. As everybody probably isn't
subscribed to this mailing list, I'm pasting his reply here:

- None of the published licenses on the OASIS BPEL IPR page would be
acceptable to the ASF.  Some of the licenses have several issues; but
one example is that they do not allow us to sublicense the rights to
our users, nor do they allow our downstream users to become licensees
without contacting the patent owner and signing a contract.  There
are other issues, but that's the easiest to describe right now.
- However, it does not appear that any of the statements claim any
*issued* patents that we would need to license.  IBM lists three
patent applications (each in various intl jurisdictions); they have
not updated the statement to say anything is issued and after doing a
quick check of the various patent application databases, I don't
believe any of them have.
-  If any of these companies (or anyone else in the world) was to
inform the ASF that they now had an issued patent that they would
license only under such terms as posted on the OASIS site, we would
(if we believe the patent to be valid, infringed, and enforceable)
have to either a) invent around the patent, b) shut down the project,
or c) convince the company to offer us more acceptable terms.
- Until that time, I see no reason why ODE should not be able to
continue its usual development.  However, prior to a release, I would
suggest that the project send an email to each company that claims to
have an essential patent pending (e.g. not BEA) and simply inform
them that we are unaware of any issued patent in this space and are
therefore continuing to make and distribute implementations of the
specs.   I've already sent an email to Microsoft about these specs,
asking them if they will include the spec under the OSP (http://
www.microsoft.com/interop/osp/default.mspx), which is acceptable to
the ASF.

Brief Historical Note:
This looks similar to the WS-Security situation we had a year ago or
so.  No entity was claiming to have issued patents, although some
claimed to have published and unpublished applications.  The licenses
offered for these potential patents were not acceptable to the ASF;
but at that time, there was nothing to license.  IIRC, we (Dims as WS
PMC chair; Sam Ruby from the board; and me, as legal guy) decided
(with advice from counsel) that we would not stop WS-Security from
releasing, but that this indeed might have to be the case one day if
someone came to us with an issued patent and a license that looked
like what was published at the time.  Since that time, Microsoft (one
of the spec authors making an IPR statement on WS-Security) has
introduced the OSP (based, in large part, on our input), which now
covers (WS-Security).  However, I don't believe we have seen any
revised licenses or notifications of issued patents from anyone else.

Cliff

Re: BPEL IP rights and patent

[Matthieu Riou <ma...@gmail.com>]

Yes! Maybe we can start planning again for a release, what do you think?

On 12/7/06, Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> So we are good to go!
>
> thanks,
> dims
>
> On 12/7/06, Alex Boisvert <bo...@intalio.com> wrote:
> > Great stuff!  Thanks Cliff and Matthieu for your efforts!
> >
> > alex
> >
> > On 12/7/06, Matthieu Riou <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > We've finally got an answer about the intellectual property issues
> > > surrounding the WS-BPEL specification. And it's pretty good news!
> Cliff
> > > Schmidt has posted it on legal-discuss. As everybody probably isn't
> > > subscribed to this mailing list, I'm pasting his reply here:
> > >
> > > - None of the published licenses on the OASIS BPEL IPR page would be
> > > acceptable to the ASF.  Some of the licenses have several issues; but
> > > one example is that they do not allow us to sublicense the rights to
> > > our users, nor do they allow our downstream users to become licensees
> > > without contacting the patent owner and signing a contract.  There
> > > are other issues, but that's the easiest to describe right now.
> > > - However, it does not appear that any of the statements claim any
> > > *issued* patents that we would need to license.  IBM lists three
> > > patent applications (each in various intl jurisdictions); they have
> > > not updated the statement to say anything is issued and after doing a
> > > quick check of the various patent application databases, I don't
> > > believe any of them have.
> > > -  If any of these companies (or anyone else in the world) was to
> > > inform the ASF that they now had an issued patent that they would
> > > license only under such terms as posted on the OASIS site, we would
> > > (if we believe the patent to be valid, infringed, and enforceable)
> > > have to either a) invent around the patent, b) shut down the project,
> > > or c) convince the company to offer us more acceptable terms.
> > > - Until that time, I see no reason why ODE should not be able to
> > > continue its usual development.  However, prior to a release, I would
> > > suggest that the project send an email to each company that claims to
> > > have an essential patent pending (e.g. not BEA) and simply inform
> > > them that we are unaware of any issued patent in this space and are
> > > therefore continuing to make and distribute implementations of the
> > > specs.   I've already sent an email to Microsoft about these specs,
> > > asking them if they will include the spec under the OSP (http://
> > > www.microsoft.com/interop/osp/default.mspx), which is acceptable to
> > > the ASF.
> > >
> > > Brief Historical Note:
> > > This looks similar to the WS-Security situation we had a year ago or
> > > so.  No entity was claiming to have issued patents, although some
> > > claimed to have published and unpublished applications.  The licenses
> > > offered for these potential patents were not acceptable to the ASF;
> > > but at that time, there was nothing to license.  IIRC, we (Dims as WS
> > > PMC chair; Sam Ruby from the board; and me, as legal guy) decided
> > > (with advice from counsel) that we would not stop WS-Security from
> > > releasing, but that this indeed might have to be the case one day if
> > > someone came to us with an issued patent and a license that looked
> > > like what was published at the time.  Since that time, Microsoft (one
> > > of the spec authors making an IPR statement on WS-Security) has
> > > introduced the OSP (based, in large part, on our input), which now
> > > covers (WS-Security).  However, I don't believe we have seen any
> > > revised licenses or notifications of issued patents from anyone else.
> > >
> > > Cliff
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Davanum Srinivas : http://www.wso2.net (Oxygen for Web Service Developers)
>

Re: BPEL IP rights and patent

[Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>]

So we are good to go!

thanks,
dims

On 12/7/06, Alex Boisvert <bo...@intalio.com> wrote:
> Great stuff!  Thanks Cliff and Matthieu for your efforts!
>
> alex
>
> On 12/7/06, Matthieu Riou <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > We've finally got an answer about the intellectual property issues
> > surrounding the WS-BPEL specification. And it's pretty good news! Cliff
> > Schmidt has posted it on legal-discuss. As everybody probably isn't
> > subscribed to this mailing list, I'm pasting his reply here:
> >
> > - None of the published licenses on the OASIS BPEL IPR page would be
> > acceptable to the ASF.  Some of the licenses have several issues; but
> > one example is that they do not allow us to sublicense the rights to
> > our users, nor do they allow our downstream users to become licensees
> > without contacting the patent owner and signing a contract.  There
> > are other issues, but that's the easiest to describe right now.
> > - However, it does not appear that any of the statements claim any
> > *issued* patents that we would need to license.  IBM lists three
> > patent applications (each in various intl jurisdictions); they have
> > not updated the statement to say anything is issued and after doing a
> > quick check of the various patent application databases, I don't
> > believe any of them have.
> > -  If any of these companies (or anyone else in the world) was to
> > inform the ASF that they now had an issued patent that they would
> > license only under such terms as posted on the OASIS site, we would
> > (if we believe the patent to be valid, infringed, and enforceable)
> > have to either a) invent around the patent, b) shut down the project,
> > or c) convince the company to offer us more acceptable terms.
> > - Until that time, I see no reason why ODE should not be able to
> > continue its usual development.  However, prior to a release, I would
> > suggest that the project send an email to each company that claims to
> > have an essential patent pending (e.g. not BEA) and simply inform
> > them that we are unaware of any issued patent in this space and are
> > therefore continuing to make and distribute implementations of the
> > specs.   I've already sent an email to Microsoft about these specs,
> > asking them if they will include the spec under the OSP (http://
> > www.microsoft.com/interop/osp/default.mspx), which is acceptable to
> > the ASF.
> >
> > Brief Historical Note:
> > This looks similar to the WS-Security situation we had a year ago or
> > so.  No entity was claiming to have issued patents, although some
> > claimed to have published and unpublished applications.  The licenses
> > offered for these potential patents were not acceptable to the ASF;
> > but at that time, there was nothing to license.  IIRC, we (Dims as WS
> > PMC chair; Sam Ruby from the board; and me, as legal guy) decided
> > (with advice from counsel) that we would not stop WS-Security from
> > releasing, but that this indeed might have to be the case one day if
> > someone came to us with an issued patent and a license that looked
> > like what was published at the time.  Since that time, Microsoft (one
> > of the spec authors making an IPR statement on WS-Security) has
> > introduced the OSP (based, in large part, on our input), which now
> > covers (WS-Security).  However, I don't believe we have seen any
> > revised licenses or notifications of issued patents from anyone else.
> >
> > Cliff
> >
> >
>
>


-- 
Davanum Srinivas : http://www.wso2.net (Oxygen for Web Service Developers)

Re: BPEL IP rights and patent

[Alex Boisvert <bo...@intalio.com>]

Great stuff!  Thanks Cliff and Matthieu for your efforts!

alex

On 12/7/06, Matthieu Riou <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> We've finally got an answer about the intellectual property issues
> surrounding the WS-BPEL specification. And it's pretty good news! Cliff
> Schmidt has posted it on legal-discuss. As everybody probably isn't
> subscribed to this mailing list, I'm pasting his reply here:
>
> - None of the published licenses on the OASIS BPEL IPR page would be
> acceptable to the ASF.  Some of the licenses have several issues; but
> one example is that they do not allow us to sublicense the rights to
> our users, nor do they allow our downstream users to become licensees
> without contacting the patent owner and signing a contract.  There
> are other issues, but that's the easiest to describe right now.
> - However, it does not appear that any of the statements claim any
> *issued* patents that we would need to license.  IBM lists three
> patent applications (each in various intl jurisdictions); they have
> not updated the statement to say anything is issued and after doing a
> quick check of the various patent application databases, I don't
> believe any of them have.
> -  If any of these companies (or anyone else in the world) was to
> inform the ASF that they now had an issued patent that they would
> license only under such terms as posted on the OASIS site, we would
> (if we believe the patent to be valid, infringed, and enforceable)
> have to either a) invent around the patent, b) shut down the project,
> or c) convince the company to offer us more acceptable terms.
> - Until that time, I see no reason why ODE should not be able to
> continue its usual development.  However, prior to a release, I would
> suggest that the project send an email to each company that claims to
> have an essential patent pending (e.g. not BEA) and simply inform
> them that we are unaware of any issued patent in this space and are
> therefore continuing to make and distribute implementations of the
> specs.   I've already sent an email to Microsoft about these specs,
> asking them if they will include the spec under the OSP (http://
> www.microsoft.com/interop/osp/default.mspx), which is acceptable to
> the ASF.
>
> Brief Historical Note:
> This looks similar to the WS-Security situation we had a year ago or
> so.  No entity was claiming to have issued patents, although some
> claimed to have published and unpublished applications.  The licenses
> offered for these potential patents were not acceptable to the ASF;
> but at that time, there was nothing to license.  IIRC, we (Dims as WS
> PMC chair; Sam Ruby from the board; and me, as legal guy) decided
> (with advice from counsel) that we would not stop WS-Security from
> releasing, but that this indeed might have to be the case one day if
> someone came to us with an issued patent and a license that looked
> like what was published at the time.  Since that time, Microsoft (one
> of the spec authors making an IPR statement on WS-Security) has
> introduced the OSP (based, in large part, on our input), which now
> covers (WS-Security).  However, I don't believe we have seen any
> revised licenses or notifications of issued patents from anyone else.
>
> Cliff
>
>