You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to legal-discuss@apache.org by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com> on 2005/07/22 08:21:40 UTC
Fwd: Followup to: License for WS-Security Meeting Thursday July 21st @9:00
FYI
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jim Markwith (LCA) <ji...@microsoft.com>
Date: Jul 21, 2005 8:33 PM
Subject: Followup to: License for WS-Security Meeting Thursday July 21st @9:00
To: Cliff Schmidt <cl...@gmail.com>, Sam Ruby
<ru...@apache.org>, dims@apache.org
Cc: "Jenny Winslow (LCA)" <je...@microsoft.com>, "Amy Marasco (LCA)"
<am...@microsoft.com>, "Scott Edwards (LCA)"
<sc...@microsoft.com>, "Valerie See (LCA)"
<vs...@windows.microsoft.com>, "Jim Markwith (LCA)"
<ji...@microsoft.com>
Cliff and Dims,
It was a pleasure speaking with you earlier today.
As a follow-up to our conversation, please be advised that, as of
today, neither Amy nor I know of any issued Microsoft patent claims
necessary for the implementation of WS-Security, as defined in our
sample posted license. Therefore, we have no reason to believe anyone
would currently need to seek a license from Microsoft in that regard.
Please let us know if you have any other questions or need any
additional information on this.
Best regards,
Jim
Jim Markwith (LCA)
Corporate Attorney
Microsoft Corporation
One Microsoft Way
Redmond, Wa 98052-6399
Phone (425) 707-3401
jimmark@microsoft.com
--
Davanum Srinivas -http://blogs.cocoondev.org/dims/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only, are not privileged and do not constitute legal advice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
RE: Followup to: License for WS-Security Meeting Thursday July 21st @9:00
Posted by Stephen McConnell <mc...@dpml.net>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Davanum Srinivas [mailto:davanum@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, 22 July 2005 9:21 PM
> To: Stephen McConnell
> Cc: legal-discuss@apache.org
> Subject: Re: Followup to: License for WS-Security Meeting
> Thursday July 21st @9:00
>
> Current versions of following specs (Version 1.0) are
>
> # Web Services Security: SOAP Message Security V1.0
> # Web Services Security: Username Token Profile V1.0
> # Web Services Security: X.509 Token Profile V1.0
>
> For these, the deadline was BEFORE they were released as final. But
> the OASIS IPR Policy does not mandate specific information on patent
> #'s etc. So it was kosher for MSFT/IBM/Verisign to offer RF terms of
> "possible IP claims" just to make sure that folks are not worried
> about getting sued.
Jut to be clear on this one - declaring a possible IPR claim seems to me to
be different to the maintenance of the option to a potential future IRP
claim. If I understand correctly the failure to claim does not in and of
itself eliminate the right to claim a right (after the event) with respect
to the above mentioned specifications. Is that correct?
> There is a new WS-Security 1.1 in the works. It is not final yet.
> there are some interops going on now (no we are not participating in
> it). So before it gets final approval from OASIS, the IPR statements
> may get updated.
And IMO the context and justification for raising these issues *now* as
opposed to later.
> Right now there were two outcomes with the meeting yesterday:
> - Yes, we have patents and these are the #'s.
> - No, we don't. you don't need a license.
>
> Am really glad that we heard the latter.
Yes .. if there is a legally binding significance to the assertion. If no
binding assertion is presented - are we looking at implicit retraction of
rights? In these scenarios my experience is to the contrary - in effect a
statement of IPR interest is not an engagement and more importantly a
non-statement is not a liability.
> Part of the discussion was
> about how to work with MSFT on the license terms so it is better in
> the future and we got them feedback and made sure that they understand
> problems with their license. They promised to think about it.
Which is good in principal but dangerous in substance .. (if you know what I
mean). We are talking with the presumption that and the name of the game is
a reasonable loophole. Requests for assertion of rights are distinctly
different from a binding assertion of the retraction of a right by a legal
entity as a part or result of participation to a standardization process.
IMO - the opinions of parties on all sides are relevant and important to the
ongoing process but it's the binding engagements by legal entities that are
relevant to decisions that one takes.
Cheers, Steve.
> -- dims
>
> On 7/22/05, Stephen McConnell <mc...@dpml.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Davanum Srinivas [mailto:davanum@gmail.com]
> >
> > > We have to wait for the next round of disclosures to WSS TC
> > > for 1.1 spec and pray that companies will do the right thing
> > > inspite of the lame OASIS IPR Policy (both old and new).
> > > (Specifically by disclosing patent #'s as soon as they know
> > > about them, usually they just wait till the next rev of the spec.)
> >
> > Davanum:
> >
> > Is it correct to assume that there is a specific deadline
> for the disclosure
> > of patents concerning the current (a.k.a. Thread related)
> WS-Security
> > specification? If there is a deadline - has is passed or
> is it still to
> > come? If it has passed have there been any disclosures
> published? If it
> > has not passed - do we know specifically when the deadline
> for disclosure
> > is? And one more question - does a failure to disclose
> eliminate the right
> > of a patent holder to enforce a right (which for example
> does not appear to
> > be the case with respect to OSGI related specs and
> obligations of members).
> >
> > Cheers, Steve.
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Davanum Srinivas -http://blogs.cocoondev.org/dims/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only, are not privileged and do not constitute legal advice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Followup to: License for WS-Security Meeting Thursday July 21st @9:00
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
Current versions of following specs (Version 1.0) are
# Web Services Security: SOAP Message Security V1.0
# Web Services Security: Username Token Profile V1.0
# Web Services Security: X.509 Token Profile V1.0
For these, the deadline was BEFORE they were released as final. But
the OASIS IPR Policy does not mandate specific information on patent
#'s etc. So it was kosher for MSFT/IBM/Verisign to offer RF terms of
"possible IP claims" just to make sure that folks are not worried
about getting sued.
There is a new WS-Security 1.1 in the works. It is not final yet.
there are some interops going on now (no we are not participating in
it). So before it gets final approval from OASIS, the IPR statements
may get updated.
Right now there were two outcomes with the meeting yesterday:
- Yes, we have patents and these are the #'s.
- No, we don't. you don't need a license.
Am really glad that we heard the latter. Part of the discussion was
about how to work with MSFT on the license terms so it is better in
the future and we got them feedback and made sure that they understand
problems with their license. They promised to think about it.
-- dims
On 7/22/05, Stephen McConnell <mc...@dpml.net> wrote:
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Davanum Srinivas [mailto:davanum@gmail.com]
>
> > We have to wait for the next round of disclosures to WSS TC
> > for 1.1 spec and pray that companies will do the right thing
> > inspite of the lame OASIS IPR Policy (both old and new).
> > (Specifically by disclosing patent #'s as soon as they know
> > about them, usually they just wait till the next rev of the spec.)
>
> Davanum:
>
> Is it correct to assume that there is a specific deadline for the disclosure
> of patents concerning the current (a.k.a. Thread related) WS-Security
> specification? If there is a deadline - has is passed or is it still to
> come? If it has passed have there been any disclosures published? If it
> has not passed - do we know specifically when the deadline for disclosure
> is? And one more question - does a failure to disclose eliminate the right
> of a patent holder to enforce a right (which for example does not appear to
> be the case with respect to OSGI related specs and obligations of members).
>
> Cheers, Steve.
>
>
--
Davanum Srinivas -http://blogs.cocoondev.org/dims/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only, are not privileged and do not constitute legal advice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
RE: Followup to: License for WS-Security Meeting Thursday July 21st @9:00
Posted by Stephen McConnell <mc...@dpml.net>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Davanum Srinivas [mailto:davanum@gmail.com]
> We have to wait for the next round of disclosures to WSS TC
> for 1.1 spec and pray that companies will do the right thing
> inspite of the lame OASIS IPR Policy (both old and new).
> (Specifically by disclosing patent #'s as soon as they know
> about them, usually they just wait till the next rev of the spec.)
Davanum:
Is it correct to assume that there is a specific deadline for the disclosure
of patents concerning the current (a.k.a. Thread related) WS-Security
specification? If there is a deadline - has is passed or is it still to
come? If it has passed have there been any disclosures published? If it
has not passed - do we know specifically when the deadline for disclosure
is? And one more question - does a failure to disclose eliminate the right
of a patent holder to enforce a right (which for example does not appear to
be the case with respect to OSGI related specs and obligations of members).
Cheers, Steve.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only, are not privileged and do not constitute legal advice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Followup to: License for WS-Security Meeting Thursday July 21st @9:00
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
Steve,
This is the way it works...the original IPR statement from
MSFT/IBM/Verisign to the OASIS WSS TC was in 2002. This IPR statement
was for the submission of the original spec to the OASIS TC. Any
company has 1 year to submit patent applications from the day of the
first publication (in this case the public submission to the TC). This
statement confirms our suspicion that there are no patents involved
for which license is required for the OASIS WSS
core/usernametoken/x509 profile specs (there are others which are
probably encumbered say SAML and we don't implement SAML in Apache)
for the versions that we have implemented in Apache.
We have to wait for the next round of disclosures to WSS TC for 1.1
spec and pray that companies will do the right thing inspite of the
lame OASIS IPR Policy (both old and new). (Specifically by disclosing
patent #'s as soon as they know about them, usually they just wait
till the next rev of the spec.)
-- dims
On 7/22/05, Stephen McConnell <mc...@dpml.net> wrote:
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Davanum Srinivas [mailto:davanum@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Friday, 22 July 2005 3:52 PM
> > To: legal-discuss@apache.org
> > Subject: Fwd: Followup to: License for WS-Security Meeting
> > Thursday July 21st @9:00
> >
> > FYI
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: Jim Markwith (LCA) <ji...@microsoft.com>
> > Date: Jul 21, 2005 8:33 PM
> > Subject: Followup to: License for WS-Security Meeting
> > Thursday July 21st @9:00
> > To: Cliff Schmidt <cl...@gmail.com>, Sam Ruby
> > <ru...@apache.org>, dims@apache.org
> > Cc: "Jenny Winslow (LCA)" <je...@microsoft.com>, "Amy Marasco (LCA)"
> > <am...@microsoft.com>, "Scott Edwards (LCA)"
> > <sc...@microsoft.com>, "Valerie See (LCA)"
> > <vs...@windows.microsoft.com>, "Jim Markwith (LCA)"
> > <ji...@microsoft.com>
> >
> > Cliff and Dims,
> >
> > It was a pleasure speaking with you earlier today.
> >
> > As a follow-up to our conversation, please be advised that,
> > as of today, neither Amy nor I know of any issued Microsoft
> > patent claims necessary for the implementation of
> > WS-Security, as defined in our sample posted license.
>
> Can anyone confirm if the opinions put forward by either Amy or Jim can be
> interpreted as a standing and irrevocable commitment of the corporate
> position of the Microsoft Corporation with respect to current and/or future
> implementations of the WS-Security specification?
>
> Cheers, Steve.
>
> (innocent bystander)
>
>
--
Davanum Srinivas -http://blogs.cocoondev.org/dims/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only, are not privileged and do not constitute legal advice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Followup to: License for WS-Security Meeting Thursday July 21st @9:00
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
Thanks Roy. Your kudos mean a lot to me.
-- dims
On 7/22/05, Roy T. Fielding <fi...@gbiv.com> wrote:
> Good work guys! Please commit a raw mbox format copy of the
> original message to some reasonably named file under
> foundation/legal (after Justin finishes rebuilding svn today).
>
> ....Roy
>
>
--
Davanum Srinivas -http://blogs.cocoondev.org/dims/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only, are not privileged and do not constitute legal advice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Followup to: License for WS-Security Meeting Thursday July 21st @9:00
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@gbiv.com>.
Good work guys! Please commit a raw mbox format copy of the
original message to some reasonably named file under
foundation/legal (after Justin finishes rebuilding svn today).
....Roy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only, are not privileged and do not constitute legal advice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
RE: Followup to: License for WS-Security Meeting Thursday July 21st @9:00
Posted by Stephen McConnell <mc...@dpml.net>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Davanum Srinivas [mailto:davanum@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, 22 July 2005 3:52 PM
> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
> Subject: Fwd: Followup to: License for WS-Security Meeting
> Thursday July 21st @9:00
>
> FYI
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Jim Markwith (LCA) <ji...@microsoft.com>
> Date: Jul 21, 2005 8:33 PM
> Subject: Followup to: License for WS-Security Meeting
> Thursday July 21st @9:00
> To: Cliff Schmidt <cl...@gmail.com>, Sam Ruby
> <ru...@apache.org>, dims@apache.org
> Cc: "Jenny Winslow (LCA)" <je...@microsoft.com>, "Amy Marasco (LCA)"
> <am...@microsoft.com>, "Scott Edwards (LCA)"
> <sc...@microsoft.com>, "Valerie See (LCA)"
> <vs...@windows.microsoft.com>, "Jim Markwith (LCA)"
> <ji...@microsoft.com>
>
> Cliff and Dims,
>
> It was a pleasure speaking with you earlier today.
>
> As a follow-up to our conversation, please be advised that,
> as of today, neither Amy nor I know of any issued Microsoft
> patent claims necessary for the implementation of
> WS-Security, as defined in our sample posted license.
Can anyone confirm if the opinions put forward by either Amy or Jim can be
interpreted as a standing and irrevocable commitment of the corporate
position of the Microsoft Corporation with respect to current and/or future
implementations of the WS-Security specification?
Cheers, Steve.
(innocent bystander)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only, are not privileged and do not constitute legal advice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org