|
#
|
Title
|
Submitter email Address
|
Summary
|
Draft reference*
|
Disposition of Comment
|
|
1
|
Contributions
to specific TC
|
karl.best@oasis-open.org
|
need language specifying that a contribution is made to a specific TC, and
that other TCs may not use the contribution
|
2.2 (28-32) or 5.1 (141-157)
|
Text of 2(3) makes this clear; to be highlighted in FAQ materials.
|
|
2
|
definition
of Contribution is electronic
|
karl.best@oasis-open.org
|
To match the TC Process, a Contribution must be electronic. Paper submissions
not accepted.
|
2.2 (28-32)
|
No change needed: current practice is to use electronic contributions.
|
|
3
|
test
(ignore)
|
scott.mcgrath@oasis-open.org
|
|
No change
|
Not an actual comment.
|
|
4
|
announcement
(ignore)
|
scott.mcgrath@oasis-open.org
|
|
No change
|
Not an actual comment.
|
|
5
|
transition
to a mode not in line with existing contributions
|
msachs@cyclonecommerce.com
|
a TC could select to transition to a IPR mode that is not in line with a contribution
that has been made by a company that has since withdrawn from the TC
|
Transition Policy
|
Addressed in separate Transition Policy log
|
|
6
|
definition
of "affiliate"
|
John.Borras@cabinet-office.gsi.gov.uk
|
definition of "affiliate" needs to take into account government agencies
and other non-commercial organizations
|
2.1 (16-27)
|
Definition of "Affiliate" modified (at line 23) to apply only to
business entities. Also see Q30.
|
|
7
|
reciprocity
|
ed.cobb@bea.com
|
Patrick Gannon July 9 message
|
10.1 and 10.2
|
Similar to Q8. See Q8.
|
|
8
|
universal
vs. bilateral reciprocity
|
ed.cobb@bea.com
|
deal with alternate wording on lines 311-315 and 336-340 dealing with universal
vs. bilateral reciprocity
|
10.1 (311-315) and 10.2 (336-340)
|
Reciprocity requirment in lines 329-336 and 360-370 edited to make both options
clearly permissible: license can be conditioned either on reciprocal license to
the licensor, or to all implementers.
|
|
9
|
Consultants
and the new revised OASIS IPR Policy
|
tony_fletcher@btopenworld.com
|
Individual Members who take on short term Contracts
|
Membership Agreement & membership categories
|
Addressed in separate Membership Agreement log
|
|
10
|
OASIS
IPR Policy Review
|
sanderson@opennetwork.com
|
Clarify/Change RF Mode Terminology
|
10.2.1 (342-345) and 10.2.2 (347-354)
|
Names of RF modes changed to make more intuitive: "RF on RAND Terms",
for the unrestricted option, and "RF on Limited Terms" for the option
which restricts some license conditions.
|
|
11
|
I
agree
|
jfuller@wernervas.com
|
Eligibility rules for Individual Members; IP agreements from an inidvidual
members' employer
|
Relates to whether an individual or an employer is the "member",
and thus who has obligations as a "TC Party" -- not the terms of the
obligations.
|
Addressed in separate Membership Agreement log
|
|
12
|
New
Requirements on Individual Members
|
drummond.reed@cordance.net
|
Eligibility rules for Individual Members; IP agreements from an individual
members' employer
|
See Q11
|
Same issue as Q11: see Q11
|
|
13
|
Feedback
on IPR Policy Terminology on RF Modes
|
drummond.reed@cordance.net
|
Clarify/Change RF Mode Terminology
|
10.2.1 (342-345) and 10.2.2 (347-354)
|
Same issue as Q10: see Q10
|
|
14
|
New
Requirements on Individual Members
|
mattm@adobe.com
|
Eligibility rules for Individual Members
|
See Q11
|
Same issue as Q11: see Q11
|
|
15
|
New
Requirements on Individual Members
|
June.Leung@FundSERV.com
|
Eligibility rules for Individual Members (between jobs)
|
See Q11
|
Same issue as Q11: see Q11
|
|
16
|
New
Requirements on Individual Members
|
dskyberg@rsasecurity.com
|
Eligibility rules for Individual Members (IP waivers?)
|
See Q11
|
Same issue as Q11: see Q11
|
|
17
|
Comment
on New IPR Policy
|
Farrukh.Najmi@Sun.COM
|
Eligibility rules for Individual Members (IP waivers?)
|
See Q11
|
Same issue as Q11: see Q11
|
|
18
|
Change
related to Company IPR Ownership for Individual Members
|
david@drrw.info
|
Eligibility rules for Individual Members (Impact on TC membership)
|
See Q11
|
Same issue as Q11: see Q11
|
|
19
|
Participation
obligation comments
|
guy@atomikos.com
|
Definition of Participation Obligation
|
2.20 (100-102) and 9.2 (274-293)
|
Revised 2.20 and 9.2 to make relationship and definition more clear.
|
|
20
|
Individual
Membership and the new IPR
|
saskary@nuperus.com
|
Eligibility rules for Individual Members (relationship to membership categories)
|
See Q11
|
Same issue as Q11: see Q11
|
|
21
|
Comments
on new IPR Draft
and
|
guy@atomikos.com
|
Impact of Participation and Contribution Obligations
|
9.2 (274-293)
|
Member objects to any obligation to license; can't be reconciled with the basic
premise of this revision, that some enforceable obligations to license should
be imposed. No changes made.
|
|
22
|
Individual
Member Participation
|
Tony.Jewtushenko@oracle.com
|
Inpact of Individual Membership
|
See Q9
|
Same issue as Q9: see Q9
|
|
23
|
Question
about "contribution"
|
robin@isogen.com
|
Include verbal offerings as "contributions" giving rise to licensing
obligation
|
2.2 (28-32)
|
Under the proposed rule, a "contribution" merely accelerates a TC
participant's obligation, by potentially triggering an event-driven "contribution
obligation" earlier than the same party's acquisition of a "participation
obligation" by the passage of time. In either case, the party's obligation
is bounded by whether a claim is essential to the final specification's implementation,
not *whether it was "contributed". A clear start date for license obligations
is important. The subcommittee felt that the uncertainty of date-stamping a verbal
(spoken) contribution outweighs the risk associated with the time lag.
|
|
24
|
IPR
Terms
|
dodds@e-dodds.com
|
Employment Agreements
|
See Q11
|
Same issue as Q11: see Q11
|
|
25
|
IPR
Terms
|
john.tollefsrud@sun.com
|
RF Naming
|
10.2.1 (342-345) and 10.2.2 (347-354)
|
Same issue as Q10: see Q10
|
|
26
|
Feedback
on Member Review of IPR Process
|
drummond.reed@cordance.net
|
RF IPR Mode Names - Negotiated for Unrestrictive; Uniform for Restrictive
|
10.2.1 (342-345) and 10.2.2 (347-354)
|
Same issue as Q10: see Q10
|
|
27
|
New
IPR Policy - a giant step backward?
|
david@drrw.info
|
Create a fourth No-License Mode
|
A new 4.4 (following 138) and 10.3 (following 354)
|
The three proposed modes do not dictate the TC's selection of contributions;
they simply set a *minimum* on the licensing terms mandated. A TC in any of the
three modes can, if it chooses, assemble a license-free specification, by electing
only to incorporate contributions that had those attributes. But that is a back-end
decision, and the modes are an up-front filter. A fourth-mode approach was considered
but declined after some analysis: the subcommittee was concerned that a front-end
prohibition of *any* conditions, given the revision's stronger and automatic licensing
obligations, might actually keep parties out of the room. That would make it impossible
to bargain with them, or discover (and decide how to address) their concerns.
The subcommittee felt that the best approach for promoting standards work at OASIS
is to frame rules that permit the largest number of participants to attend. Another
concern raised was that an absolute no-licenses condition would exclude all sorts
of other benign terms,
|
|
28
|
Feedback
on Member Review of IPR Process
|
ddomeny@ektron.com
|
No written licenses should be required for prototyping and implementation of
RF works
|
10.2 (additional text)
|
There are non-royalty terms often addressed by conventional licenses. Member
practices vary widely. Some do offer the "paper-free" approach suggested
here, which still WILL be permitted. However, neither that nor any other licensing
practice will be MANDATED under this approach -- just as with the current policy.
On prototyping, the subcommittee agrees that there are special concerns, and new
sec. 6 of the member review draft addresses these.
|
|
29
|
Individual
Membership as a way to maintain contact during "unfriendly" employment
|
ann.wrightson@csw.co.uk
|
Individual Membership as a result of takeovers
|
See Q9
|
Same issue as Q9: see Q9
|
|
30
|
tq764
|
D-Leff@wiu.edu
|
Individual Membership - universities
|
Membership Agreement & membership categories
|
Addressed in separate Membership Agreement log. Also see Q6.
|
|
31
|
Member
Review - revised OASIS IPR Policy (PARTIAL)
|
zeuch@lucent.com
|
RAND as the only IPR Mode
|
Delete 10.2
|
Some OASIS members and TCs have a strong track record of producing work under
RF terms; OASIS should continue to accommodate them. Parties who do not wish to
make an RF commitment can elect to participate only in RAND TCs. No change made.
|
|
32
|
Member
Review - revised OASIS IPR Policy (PARTIAL)
|
zeuch@lucent.com
|
Sub-Licenseable Copyright
|
5.2.1 (159-168)
|
The subcommittee has been advised that no change is necessary to permit distribution
of copyrighted material in OASIS' conventional manner.
|
|
33
|
Member
Review - revised OASIS IPR Policy (PARTIAL)
|
zeuch@lucent.com
|
Obligation to license should be qualified, where licensor has limited rights
to license
|
10.1 (305 - text provided)
|
Such a limit would, if available, tend to decrease license availabiilty, because
members could *elect* to take on contractual bars to re-licensing, in order to
thwart the policy. The subcommittee concluded that good-faith license limits (a)
could be explicitly addressed by disclosure, for contributions, and (b) were a
fairly unusual edge case, applied to participation obligations. No change made.
|
|
34
|
IPR
Policy Feedback
|
mweiner@us.ibm.com
|
Single RF Mode
|
Delete 10.2.x (plus supporting text)
|
There seems to be substantial demand for both varieties of RF mode. No change
made.
|
|
35
|
Definition
of Contrbution
|
karl.best@oasis-open.org
|
Electronic only contributions
|
2.2 (28-32)
|
Same issue as Q2: see Q2
|
|
36
|
Definition
of Contrbution
|
karl.best@oasis-open.org
|
Electronic only contributions
|
2.2 (28-32)
|
Same issue as Q2: see Q2
|
|
37
|
UBL
and the Proposed IPR Policy Changes
|
david@drrw.info
|
No Licenses IPR Mode
|
4.4 (following 138) and 10.3 (following 354)
|
Same issue as Q27: see Q27
|
|
38
|
IPR
Comments from CGM Open WebCGM TC (PARTIAL)
|
david.w.cruikshank@boeing.com
|
Individual Members
|
See Q11
|
Same issue as Q11: see Q11
|
|
39
|
IPR
Comments from CGM Open WebCGM TC (PARTIAL)
|
david.w.cruikshank@boeing.com
|
No IPR Mode
|
4.4 (following 138) and 10.3 (following 354)
|
Same issue as Q27: see Q27
|
|
40
|
Comments
from the LegalXML Member Section (PARTIAL)
|
john@greacen.net
|
Can MS pick IPR Modes for all its TCs?
|
Transition Policy
|
Addressed in separate Transition Policy log
|
|
41
|
Comments
from the LegalXML Member Section (PARTIAL)
|
john@greacen.net
|
Automatic transition to Restrictive RF
|
Transition Policy
|
Addressed in separate Transition Policy log
|
|
42
|
Comments
from the LegalXML Member Section (PARTIAL)
|
john@greacen.net
|
Contribution to all TCs in MS
|
2.2 (28-32) or 5.1 (141-157)
|
Each charter of a TC encapsulates the participating members' willingness to
be bound with respect to its scope. See Q1. That distinction is needed in many
TCs. Where multiple TCs wish to align on IPR, as here, it can be multiply contributed
to acheive the desired outcome. No change made.
|
|
43
|
Comments
from the LegalXML Member Section (PARTIAL)
|
john@greacen.net
|
Individual Memberships
|
See Q11
|
Same issue as Q11: see Q11
|
|
44
|
Comments
on the New IPR Policy (PARTIAL)
|
hlockhar@bea,com
|
Determination of Essential Claims
|
Sec 10
|
Subcommittee concluded that no change to text is required.
|
|
45
|
Comments
on the New IPR Policy (PARTIAL)
|
hlockhar@bea,com
|
TC Process changes for IPR Policy
|
TC Process
|
Addressed in separate TC Process log
|
|
46
|
Comments
on the New IPR Policy (PARTIAL)
|
hlockhar@bea,com
|
Individual Memberships
|
See Q11
|
Same issue as Q11: see Q11
|
|
47
|
Comments
on the New IPR Policy (PARTIAL)
|
hlockhar@bea,com
|
RF Mode Terminology
|
10.2.1 (342-345) and 10.2.2 (347-354)
|
Same issue as Q10: see Q10
|
|
48
|
Comments
on the New IPR Policy (PARTIAL)
|
hlockhar@bea,com
|
Draft vs. Specification Terminology
|
TC Process
|
Addressed in separate TC Process log; conforming changes made here: secs 2(13),
9.2 (lines 286-87), etc.
|
|
49
|
Comments
on the New IPR Policy (PARTIAL)
|
hlockhar@bea,com
|
Impact on operation of the TCs
|
Transition Policy
|
Addressed in separate Transition Policy log
|
|
50
|
Reiteration
|
jfuller@wernervas.com
|
Individual Membership criteria
|
See Q11
|
Same issue as Q11: see Q11
|
|
51
|
IPR
Comments
|
guy@atomikos.com
|
new IPR Policy doesn't make sense because of restrictions?
|
See Q21
|
Same issue as Q21: see Q21
|
|
52
|
IPR
Policy will hinder adoption of specs
|
Robert.Haugen@choreology.com
|
Licensing is bad; see next 4 comments
|
6, 10.1, 10.2
|
Similar issue to Q27. See Q27.
|
|
53
|
Eliminate
"non-sublicensable" clause
|
Robert.Haugen@choreology.com
|
Eliminate non sub-licensible
|
10.2.1 and 10.2.2
|
The clause, which appears in two places, has been modified to clarify that
a direct licensee may permit its customers to use the licensed work consistent
with the original license.
|
|
54
|
Create
one more IPR Mode; Public Domain
|
Robert.Haugen@choreology.com
|
Add public domain IPR mode
|
4.4 (following 138) and 10.3 (following 354)
|
Same issue as Q27: see Q27
|
|
55
|
OASIS
Should consolidate and broker RF Licenses
|
Robert.Haugen@choreology.com
|
Have OASIS Consolidate Licenses
|
10.X (lots of new text)
|
Same issue as Q28: see Q28
|
|
56
|
How
to resolve the Individual Members Dilemma
|
Robert.Haugen@choreology.com
|
Use Feedback License for Individual Members
|
New section or change to 7
|
Similar to the "waiver" or "agreement for employers" concept
in Q11. See Q11.
|
|
57
|
New
IPR Policy
|
george@granddevelopment.com
|
Individual Memberships - Consultants
|
See Q9
|
Same issue as Q9: see Q9
|
|
58
|
New
OASIS IPR Policy
|
phogan@sinotechnologies.com
|
Individual membership & accessibility of policy to Open Source community
|
See Q11, Q27
|
See Q11 (individuals), Q27 (open source). The subcommittee has been advised
that the RF on RAND terms mode is compatible with open source licensing; member
comments from governmental communities appear to confirm this.
|
|
59
|
IPR
Comments (PARTIAL)
|
mweiner@us.ibm.com
|
Editorial Comments
|
162-566 (text provided)
|
Various minor edits have been made to implement the suggestions.
|
|
60
|
IPR
Comments (PARTIAL)
|
mweiner@us.ibm.com
|
Revisit Feedback License
|
Delete 7.1
|
Subcommittee concluded that the protection is worth retaining, and would not
unduly impede comments. No change made.
|
|
61
|
IPR
Comments (PARTIAL)
|
mweiner@us.ibm.com
|
Easier path for copyright contributions where no written license required
|
5.2.2 (additional text)
|
Subcommittee concluded that Scetion 5.2.2. covers all cases adequately. No
change made.
|
|
62
|
IPR
Policy Comments from Fujitsu (PARTIAL)
|
masahiko.narita@jp.fujitsu.com
|
Transition voting rules
|
Transition Policy
|
Addressed in separate Transition Policy log
|
|
63
|
IPR
Policy Comments from Fujitsu (PARTIAL)
|
masahiko.narita@jp.fujitsu.com
|
Restrictive RF is not restricted enough
|
10.2.2
|
Subcommittee concluded that the existing three planned modes were adequate.
See also Q27.
|
|
64
|
IPR
Policy Comments from Fujitsu (PARTIAL)
|
masahiko.narita@jp.fujitsu.com
|
Restriction of licensing obligation solely to Essential Claims is too narrow
to promote adoption
|
2.6 (41-51)
|
Subcommittee concluded that limiting the required license to "essential
claims" was conventional in the industry and thus appropriate. No change
made.
|
|
65
|
IPR
Policy Comments from Fujitsu (PARTIAL)
|
masahiko.narita@jp.fujitsu.com
|
When are Essential Claims determined?
|
2(6)
|
Changes to reference to specification stages made, to clarify when an incorporated
technology becomes 'essential'
|
|
66
|
IPR
Policy Comments from Fujitsu (PARTIAL)
|
masahiko.narita@jp.fujitsu.com
|
Can Licensing of Optional Parts be different?
|
2(10)
|
Subcommittee concluded that limiting the required license to the mandatory
elements of a specification was conventional in the industry and thus appropriate.
No change made.
|
|
67
|
IPR
Policy Comments from Fujitsu (PARTIAL)
|
masahiko.narita@jp.fujitsu.com
|
Eliminate non-assertion covenants
|
10.1 and 10.2
|
Subcommittee has been advised that this alternative is equivalent for user
purposes, and may be more readily feasible & enforceable, from some classes
of grantor. No change made.
|
|
68
|
IPR
Policy Comments from Fujitsu (PARTIAL)
|
masahiko.narita@jp.fujitsu.com
|
Timing of Disclosures insufficiently clear as to obligation of timely reporting
|
8.1 (207-218)
|
Subcommittee concluded that the requirement as stated was conventional in the
industry and thus appropriate. No change made.
|
|
69
|
IPR
Policy Comments from Fujitsu (PARTIAL)
|
masahiko.narita@jp.fujitsu.com
|
Disclosure Obligation is weak, as to "actual knowledge" of particiant,
and as to patent filings versus applications
|
8.1 (207-218)
|
Subcommittee concluded that limiting the required disclosure as stated was
conventional in the industry and thus appropriate. No change made.
|
|
70
|
IPR
Policy Comments from Fujitsu (PARTIAL)
|
masahiko.narita@jp.fujitsu.com
|
Disclosure Requests are weak
|
8.3 (233-237)
|
Subcommittee views these disclosure requests to nonparticipants as useful,
where voluntary and possible, but difficult to mandate. No change made.
|
|
71
|
IPR
Policy Comments from Fujitsu (PARTIAL)
|
masahiko.narita@jp.fujitsu.com
|
Good Faith disclosures, knowledge of parties other than actual TC participants
|
8.X
|
Same issue as Q69: see Q69
|
|
72
|
IPR
Policy Comments from Fujitsu (PARTIAL)
|
masahiko.narita@jp.fujitsu.com
|
Licensing Obligations not well-specified (section 9.1)
|
9.1 (267-272)
|
Editorial changes made to clarify.
|
|
73
|
IPR
Policy Comments from Fujitsu (PARTIAL)
|
masahiko.narita@jp.fujitsu.com
|
Licensing Obligations not well-specifiied (section 9.2)
|
9.2 (274-293)
|
Editorial changes made to clarify.
|
|
74
|
IPR
Policy Comments from Fujitsu (PARTIAL)
|
masahiko.narita@jp.fujitsu.com
|
Delete "non-sublicensible"
|
10.2.1 and 10.2.2 or a new definition in 2.X
|
Clarifications have been added to support distributors in section 10.1 and
10.2.1
|
|
75
|
IPR
Policy Comments from Fujitsu (PARTIAL)
|
masahiko.narita@jp.fujitsu.com
|
Delete Reciprocity (of all forms)
|
10.1 and 10.2
|
Subcommittee concluded that permitting this condition is a conventional industry
practice and appropriate to tolerate in the mandatory licensing terms. No change
made.
|
|
76
|
IPR
Policy Comments from Fujitsu (PARTIAL)
|
masahiko.narita@jp.fujitsu.com
|
What's really negotiable with Restrictive-RF?
|
10.2.2
|
FAQ or guidance language should be made available to members on this point.
No change to text.
|
|
77
|
IPR
Policy Comments from Fujitsu (PARTIAL)
|
masahiko.narita@jp.fujitsu.com
|
When has a withdrawal occurred (re: section 11.1 and 11.2; Contribution and
Participation Obligations)
|
11.1 and 11.2
|
FAQ or guidance language should be made available to members on this point.
No change to text.
|
|
78
|
IPR
Policy Comments from Fujitsu (PARTIAL)
|
masahiko.narita@jp.fujitsu.com
|
Definition of Continuing License Obligation (11.2)
|
2.X
|
Added definition.
|
|
79
|
IPR
Policy Comments from Fujitsu (PARTIAL)
|
masahiko.narita@jp.fujitsu.com
|
Why should OASIS disclaim obligation to reference claims on its web-site (14.1)
|
14.1
|
Subcommittee advised that this language protects the consortium.
|
|
80
|
|
|
FAQ comments
|
Only to FAQ
|
FAQ or guidance language should be made available to members on this point.
No change to text.
|
|
81
|
Vodaphone
comments to new IPR Policy (PARTIAL)
|
alberto.martin@vodafone.com
|
Feedback License should include obligation to disclose
|
7.X with changes to Appendix A
|
Subcommittee concluded that rights provided under the license were sufficient;
and too much burden on commenters would retard public input. No change made.
|
|
82
|
Vodaphone
comments to new IPR Policy (PARTIAL)
|
alberto.martin@vodafone.com
|
Should Disclosure Obligation survive withdrawal?
|
11.X
|
Subcommittee declined to expand burden on a departing TC member. No change
made.
|
|
83
|
Vodaphone
comments to new IPR Policy (PARTIAL)
|
alberto.martin@vodafone.com
|
Make TC Members aware of all potential claims before voting (section 13)
|
13
|
Scetion 13 modified to adopt this suggestion.
|
|
84
|
Vodaphone
comments to new IPR Policy (PARTIAL)
|
alberto.martin@vodafone.com
|
Include IPR Mode in final documents (section 14)
|
14
|
Unnecessary as this data is readily available in the TC records (as with other
history of the spec's development). No change made.
|
|
85
|
Vodaphone
comments to new IPR Policy (PARTIAL)
|
alberto.martin@vodafone.com
|
Only "new" members can participate in Transition Voting
|
Transition Policy
|
Addressed in separate Transition Policy log
|
|
86
|
Vodaphone
comments to new IPR Policy (PARTIAL)
|
alberto.martin@vodafone.com
|
Can new IPR mode apply to pre-existing standards
|
Transition Policy
|
Addressed in separate Transition Policy log
|
|
87
|
Vodaphone
comments to new IPR Policy (PARTIAL)
|
alberto.martin@vodafone.com
|
Staus of Contributions made prior to Transition
|
Transition Policy
|
Addressed in separate Transition Policy log
|
|
88
|
Response
to proposed IPR Polcy Changes
|
pmeyer@elkera.com.au
|
Individual Members ==> Small companies for $1500
|
Membership Agreement & membership categories
|
Addressed in separate Membership Agreement log
|
|
89
|
IPR
Policy Review
|
rexb@starbourne.com
|
General comments about why this may not work
|
Throughout
|
Unable to map comments to the draft without greater detail.
|
|
90
|
LMI
IPR Comments
|
MCRAWFORD@lmi.org
|
Why didn't we adopt the W3C Policy?
|
Throughout
|
Subcommittee views the present revision proposal as providing more options
and "local" control to TCs: the W3C policy is more suited to its more-centralized
consortium control of standards output. No change made.
|
|
91
|
IPR
Policy Review
|
david@drrw.info
|
Why adopt a new IPR Policy?
|
Throughout
|
Similar issue to Q21. See Q21.
|
|
92
|
reminder
to chairs : IPR Policy review
|
david@drrw.info
|
No IPR mode?
|
4.4 (following 138) and 10.3 (following 354)
|
Same issue as Q27: see Q27
|
|
93
|
Visa
International's Response (PARTIAL)
|
gwachob@visa.com
|
Timing of disclosures
|
8.1 (207-218)
|
Same issue as Q68: see Q68
|
|
94
|
Visa
International's Response (PARTIAL)
|
gwachob@visa.com
|
Section 8 numbering
|
8
|
Same issue as Q59: see Q59
|
|
95
|
Visa
International's Response (PARTIAL)
|
gwachob@visa.com
|
Jointly held patents where one owner is not an OASIS member plus confidentiality
|
8.2
|
Subcommittee feels that duties of member vs. non-member owners are clear: may
be helpful to provide FAQ or guidance material as an illustration.
|
|
96
|
Visa
International's Response (PARTIAL)
|
gwachob@visa.com
|
Essential claims definition is too narrow
|
2.6 (lines 41-51)
|
See Q64.
|
|
97
|
Feedback
on Individual Membership Issues
|
gwachob@visa.com
|
Individual Members and other relationships besides employment relationships
|
See Q9
|
Same issue as Q9: see Q9
|
|
98
|
Comments
on IPR Policy
|
sallystamand@yahoo.com
|
Individual Members - fails to meet needs
|
See Q11
|
Same issue as Q11; see Q11
|
|
99
|
reminder
to chairs : IPR Policy review (PARTIAL)
|
rphilpott@rsasecurity.com
|
Definitions of Committee Draft, Specification and Standard is confusing
|
Delete 2.14 plus multiple editorial changes
|
Definitions of different specification classes clarified. See also Q106, Q107.
|
|
100
|
reminder
to chairs : IPR Policy review (PARTIAL)
|
rphilpott@rsasecurity.com
|
Normative and optional (again)
|
2.10
|
Definiiton clarified.
|
|
101
|
reminder
to chairs : IPR Policy review (PARTIAL)
|
rphilpott@rsasecurity.com
|
A vote for bi-lateral reciprocity only
|
10.1 and 10.2
|
Similar to Q8. See Q8.
|
|
102
|
reminder
to chairs : IPR Policy review (PARTIAL)
|
rphilpott@rsasecurity.com
|
Additional terms and defaults for each IPR mode
|
10.1 and 10.2
|
"Better license" clauses ("except when licensor and licensee
have a pre-existing arrangement...") re-inserted
|
|
103
|
reminder
to chairs : IPR Policy review (PARTIAL)
|
rphilpott@rsasecurity.com
|
Time qualification for determining essential claims
|
See Q68
|
Same issue as Q69: see Q69
|
|
104
|
reminder
to chairs : IPR Policy review (PARTIAL)
|
rphilpott@rsasecurity.com
|
Normative and optional (again)
|
2.10
|
Same issue as Q100: see Q100
|
|
105
|
reminder
to chairs : IPR Policy review (PARTIAL)
|
rphilpott@rsasecurity.com
|
Carve-outs for 3rd parties that cannot be licensed
|
10.1 (305 - text provided)
|
Same issue as Q33: see Q33
|
|
106
|
reminder
to chairs : IPR Policy review (PARTIAL)
|
rphilpott@rsasecurity.com
|
Committee Drafts and Specs definitions
|
6 (184-196)
|
Similar issue as Q99: see Q99
|
|
107
|
reminder
to chairs : IPR Policy review (PARTIAL)
|
rphilpott@rsasecurity.com
|
lines 279-281; when licensing obligation kicks in
|
9.2 (279-281)
|
Similar issue as Q99: see Q99
|
|
108
|
universal
reciprocity - IPR Policy Feedback
|
jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com
|
a vote for mandatory universal reciprocity
|
10.2.1 (342-345) and 10.2.2 (347-354)
|
Same issue as Q9: see Q8
|
|
109
|
RF
contributor obligation exception for RAND TCs
|
jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com
|
Make Contributions in RAND TCs RF "punitively" if no disclosure
|
10
|
Subcommittee declined to add this new feature. No change made.
|
|
110
|
Obligation
upon withdrawal (editorial)
|
jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com
|
If Contributions not incorporated into draft prior to withdrawal, then obligation
does NOT survive
|
11.X
|
Subcommittee regarded proposed change as possibly undermining the reliability
of an already-triggered licensing obligation. No change made.
|
|
111
|
non-sublicensable
|
jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com
|
Clarify non-sublicensable
|
10.2.1 and 10.2.2 or a new definition in 2.X
|
Same issue as Q53: see Q53
|
|
112
|
Limitations
of Liability
|
jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com
|
How can it extend to 3rd parties?
|
12
|
Language has been modified to address the concern.
|
|
113
|
Required
Disclosure of Essential Claims
|
jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com
|
require 3rd party essential claims to be disclosed, if they do not violate
confidentiality
|
10.1
|
Subcommittee declined to add to burden of members to police their knowledge
of third party claims. No change made. (Such disclosures are permitted, but but
mandated.)
|
|
114
|
reciprocity
|
glushko@SIMS.Berkeley.EDU
|
reciprocity should be universal
|
10.2.1 (342-345) and 10.2.2 (347-354)
|
Same issue as Q8: see Q8
|
|
115
|
IPR
Review (PARTIAL)
|
Brad.Gandee@CONTENTGUARD.COM
|
Definition of affiliate (provided)
|
2.1 (16-27)
|
Same issue as Q6: see Q6
|
|
116
|
IPR
Review (PARTIAL)
|
Brad.Gandee@CONTENTGUARD.COM
|
Didclosure obligations are unfair to small companies and allow large ones to
avoid disclosures
|
8
|
Subcommittee views the strong licensing commitments in the policy revisions
as offsetting risks of underdisclosure. No change made.
|
|
117
|
IPR
Review (PARTIAL)
|
Brad.Gandee@CONTENTGUARD.COM
|
Concerns about Section 14.1 boilerplate language for all specs, etc.
|
14
|
Subcommittee has been advised that the various disclaimers are appropriate
for the protection of OASIS & memebrs. No change made.
|
|
118
|
IPR
Policy Question (PARTIAL)
|
jamie.clark@oasis-open.org
|
Change the 60 day participation rule to ignore gaps
|
9.2 (274-293)
|
Subcommittee prefers original plan to count a cumulative 60 calendar days,
over however long a period. No change made.
|
|
119
|
IPR
Policy Question (PARTIAL)
|
jamie.clark@oasis-open.org
|
Blocking existing RF TCs from becoming new RF TCs
|
Transition Policy
|
Addressed in separate Transition Policy log
|
|
120
|
IPR
Policy Question (PARTIAL)
|
jamie.clark@oasis-open.org
|
Is limitation of liability too broad?
|
12
|
Same issue as Q112; see Q112.
|
|
121
|
IPR
Policy Question (PARTIAL)
|
jamie.clark@oasis-open.org
|
Who signs Membership Agreement and who is bound (affiliates)?
|
Membership Agreement
|
Addressed in separate Membership Agreement log
|
|
122
|
IPR
Policy Question (PARTIAL)
|
jamie.clark@oasis-open.org
|
Individual Members - Multiple employers
|
Membership Agreement
|
Addressed in separate Membership Agreement log
|
|
123
|
UBL
and proposed IPR Policy changes
|
jon.bosak@sun.com
|
UBL can be Restriuctive-Rf
|
No change requested
|
No change needed.
|
|
124
|
UBL
and proposed IPR Policy changes
|
david@drrw.info
|
UBL shouldn't require licensing
|
6, 10.1, 10.2
|
Similar issue to Q27. See Q27.
|
|
125
|
UBL
and proposed IPR Policy changes
|
david@drrw.info
|
More dialogue on no licensing
|
6, 10.1, 10.2
|
Similar issue to Q27. See Q27.
|
|
126
|
Please
keep the list open for dialogue
|
Robert.Haugen@choreology.com
|
We'd like a discussion list
|
No change requested
|
No change needed.
|
